Han is a dynamic character introduced as a scoundrel so that he can grow to be a good character by the end. Darth Vader was similar, in that he began as evil (in episode 4) and later grew caring toward the end when family was involved to show him he was wrong. Many of the others characters were static, in that they remained either good or evil through the series.
Agreed. As I said, throughout most of the first movie, Han was not a good guy. He was shifty, greedy and selfish, even to the end of the movie. He didn't participate in the assault on the Death Star, but did, in the knick of time, clear the path for Luke. It could be argued that he did the "right" thing, but only after any real danger to himself had been mitigated. In other words, he waited until the battle was largely over. In street fighting terms, Han Solo is the guy who waits for your friends to leave, then kicks you in the back of the head while you're struggling on the ground with one of his friends.
Agreed, and if we want to go and get all meta, we can talk about the motivations behind how each character is written. Motivation has to work at the very least on a superficial level, or the suspension of disbelief begins to suffer. It makes perfect sense to me now as then that the writers were trying to establish that Han Solo is a badass dude willing to get his hands dirty. He's a honey badger.
In the long and well established tradition of Star Trek. LOL.
The usual reasons: To humiliate her, break down her emotional resistance, and enforce dominance over her. If you can do these (and some related thing) you ensure a compliant and obedient slave who is less likely to rebel, run away, or foment disloyalty among the other slaves.
Or strangle you with her own chains?
