for a rapist and murderer? I just watched this for the first time and I'm left wondering why I'm supposed to be moved by this guy dying? This is what should happen to anyone who rapes and murders....at the very least.
shareThe movie gives us multiple options, because of the symbolical bridge Helen lays between Matthew and the victim's families. It's not a movie for or against the death penalty.
From the family's perspective, the death penalty is just and necessary. I think they benefit from it in some way and I can understand their wishes.
But I think it also shows us that the death penalty will not keep people from raping and murdering eachother. It's not a way to fight crime or scare off criminals.
To me, it offers different ways of looking at the subject.
I am for capital punishment. My only problem with it is that the prisoners don't suffer enough! They should be killed the exact same way they killed their victims. An eye for an eye, etc...
shareExactly.
You strangle, you hang. You rape, sodomy-by-broomstick (broken end first). You touch children sexually, you hang by genitals. Nothing wrong with this. It's what the criminals signed up for anyway. Make sure it's in the fine print.
[deleted]
"This movie offers the glossy Hollywood edition of redemption of forgiveness, the real story (Robert Lee Willie is the real life character that Poncelet is mostly based on) is much less clear on whether the perpetrator was ever truly penitent"
The character of Poncelet also has strong similarities to Patrick Sonnier a man that Helen Prejean was a spiritual adviser to and Poncelets remorse is based on Sonniers remorse. Poncelets last words of apologizing to the victims parents are taken from Sonniers last words and a prison guard said if he had ever seen a remorseful man on death row it was Patrick Sonnier.
[deleted]
That article says that the Sean Penn character was based on Sonniers crime but Willie's personality which is largely true but there was elements of Sonniers personality as well including his remorse, his last words, his bond with Helen Prejean and his concern for his mother and daughter.
Debbie Morris the teenage girl Willie kidnapped has also written a book about what happened to her called Forgiving the Dead Man Walking and while she obviously concentrates more on Willie than Sonnier she does mention in her book that Sonnier was genuinely remorseful.
[deleted]
This film is not asking you to feel sorry for Sean's character, for me, it is a film about spiritual redemption. Susan Sarandon's character states that as his spiritual guide she wanted to help him die with dignity which entailed her coaxing him to face up to what he did to the teenagers, to accept his role in their death and to ask forgiveness from God before he dies. In doing so, she also coaxes him into understanding the life sentence he has placed on the families of the murdered,as well as his own family, and to accept his fate on death row(rather than trying to find a loophole in the law to save his life).
The film of course does explore the appropriateness of the death penalty as a form of state punishment but, in my opinion, it doesn't tell you what to think about it. Sean's character's death brings peace to one family but not the other. For the father of the murdered boy, his peace lies in his forgiveness of Sean's character and his ability to move on from the loss of his son(displayed in the end when he shows up to the funeral and when he is seen praying with Susan Sarandon's character at the end of the film).
I didn't feel sorry for Sean's character, and in fact felt relief when he was finally dead, but the film gave me a lot to think about, and my guess is that this was the only intention of the film.
[deleted]
Doesn't work that way, the world never went blind, and executions (more bloody, crude executions) happened for many years. That's just a lame cliche.
shareSean Penn did an amazing job acting in this movie but I didn't feel bad for his character. I don't feel like the movie tried too hard to do that, which was a relief because I thought it would be one of those "hit you over the head with a message" movies to manipulate the audience into putting all the sympathy on the murderer, but they kept making it clear what he did was horrible by the flashbacks and what the victim's families had been going through.
Predictions:DiCaprio/Streep/Winslet/Fiennes
for a rapist and murderer? I just watched this for the first time and I'm left wondering why I'm supposed to be moved by this guy dying? This is what should happen to anyone who rapes and murders....at the very least.
The first time I watched this movie, it was a heavily cut version in Sweden, where most of Poncelet's violence, what was shown as his memories as he was being executed, edited out in such a way that it looked like he didn't do anything at all, so it looked like he was innocent to the crimes he was being executed for.
The purpose is to show how love can affect a person. His character gets less and less stubborn the more love Sarandon shows to him. I think redemption was the main theme. No one is beyond forgiveness. That is what I got out of the ending. Not that we should pity a rapist and murderer for being punished, but we should pity the loveless life this man lead up to the point where he was put to death. The movie also showed how truly sick the death penalty is. Taking joy in another person's death makes you just as guilty as the criminal being put to death.
share[deleted]
I can see where you are coming from with your response, but I think it is a tad cynical. I also disagree with your views toward compassion and humanity. I believe people make very little free willed choices (if any) in their lives. Therefore every person is deserving of humanity and compassion. (not to say they should be free of consequences) Sean Penn's character acknowledged and understood the wrong-doings of his behavior. The movie showed that he was able to do this because of his relationship with susan surandon. I thought the movie did a great job of showing how hard it is to try and understand such a terrible person, while also showing that even though he was this horrible rapist and murderer, he was still a human being. Also, just by making the movie Tim Robbins showed his willingness to try and understand these people. To say what Sean Penn or Tim Robbins did in this movie was easy is absolutely ludicrous.
P.S. By saying you are a liberal and a free thinker you are trying to categorize yourself with a stereotype. I don't understand that, why not just say your piece and let your words speak for you.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yes Stalin deserved love, and let's not go into the you need to talk someone comments. What do you think drove these people to make these decisions. You are who you are because of everyone else in your life and the DNA that was given to you. No one gets to choose who they are in this world. In this movie Penn was surrounded his entire life with people who preached hate for certain types of people. How can you expect him to believe in anything other than hate? Listen to some of MLK's speeches about love. He does not talk about killing the people who were lynching blacks. He talks about trying to talk to them, so they can understand why lynching is wrong. We should not seek to destroy people, but to enlighten them. Penn had never encountered a person like Surandon in his entire life. If you think for one second that your actions and beliefs are not directly related to the relationships and environments that have been involved in your life then you are just wrong. Have you ever thought about what kind of person you would be if you lived in a different environment? Read the oresteia. If you don't seek to understand people then you will have trouble making changes. IMO
share[deleted]
It doesn't matter WHAT "drove these people to make these decisions". Again, you don't understand how horrible some people can be. It doesn't matter. All that matters is they DID make those decisions. And that's what the punishment should be based on, purely. Many people have horrible childhoods full of abuse, incest, etc., and they don't harm anyone after that. Because they're good people. Plain and simple. The people who commit terrible crimes are terrible people. It's just common sense.
Seriously, though, take that advice you just got and talk to someone. Saying "let's not go into" doesn't remove your need to do talk to someone. Educate yourself. You're long overdue.
"Have you ever thought about what kind of person you would be if you lived in a different environment?"
Yep, I believe I would still be a good person. But if I wasn't, and I went out and raped and killed people, then I would deserve to fry as well. Your "imagine it was you" argument just doesn't work. ONE, I WOULD deserve exactly what I would wish for others in this case (to fry), and TWO, it doesn't matter what I think I would deserve because I would never do those horrible things. Imagine it was me? It can't be me, because I wouldn't do anything so horrible.
Frying bad people, though. Isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. Talk to someone.
You are a contributor and an accessory to repeated offences by escaped and paroled criminals, by having this stance. You are partly responsible. When one of your "understood" and "sympathized with" criminals commits another horrible act against someone, you might as well have been the one standing there looking around to see if anyone was coming while your friend there was committing the act. What do you say to the family of that victim then? Just how do you apologize for that?
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. I am sure you have done plenty of ugly things in your life that you have matured away from. If you do not seek to rehabilitate the living people that are doing wrong, then you are just encouraging genocide. By allowing yourself to condemn a person, you are trying to play a role much too big for any human.
shareCliche after cliche after cliche. No real arguments.
"I am sure you have done plenty of ugly things in your life that you have matured away from."
I don't think that compares.
Anyway, how would you apologize for being the cause of another senseless death when you encourage the eventual release or parole of monsters who go on to commit more crimes?
The same I would feel about our government bailing out companies that have already failed. In order for things to get better you have to be willing to forgive and offer second chances. Otherwise we would all be bitter towards everything and hate each other. There obviously should be forced rehab for a specified length of time, in some cases even for life, but death should never be an option.
I am willing to forgive and offer second chances. But there's a limit. I draw the line at violent crime. And if you forgive and offer second chances, then you have to offer second chances to the dead victims as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Offer second chances to both the criminal and the dead victim, to be fair, or neither. You can't choose one or the other.
Can you answer the question I asked you twice already?
How would you apologize to families of victims of repeat offenders who commit the crime again after "forced rehab for a specified length of time"?
What I mean is, once one of your good, misunderstood people gets out of rehab, gets out of prison, then does indeed (of course) kill someone else after being given the freedom that YOU allowed him to have, how do you apologize to the family of that victim? (You know, for being partly the cause of the death.)
Can you answer that one? Don't avoid it on the notion "I had nothing to do with it", because you absolutely DID, sitting here arguing for freedom and second chances and all that nonsense.
Well if they murdered someone, I think they should get a life sentence. There should be no reason why they should ever be released from prison other than financial problems in our jail systems. That is another issue/problem with our criminal system right now. If a person is released from prison and commits the same crime I would tell the family that the criminal should have never been released. I am not advocating releasing these prisoners back into the free society. However, look at the things tookie williams had done while he was in prison. By executing him the government eliminated an incredibly influential and positive voice against gang violence. Every person can change. Obviously not all, probably not even a majority, will change for the better while in prison, but I believe it is much more productive to society for us to keep people alive in prison rather than kill them. Not to mention the financial problems involved in the death penalty. It costs the government more to kill someone than it does to keep them in prison for 70 years.
sharePeople can change, all right. But it's too late once they've done something horrible. I mean, it's not like the dead victims can change. They can't become alive again. So how is it fair to give someone who took an innocent life so horribly more chances? I think it's fair to let people change if they are extreme drinkers or drug addicts; thieves, or con artists. Not violent criminals. That's something else entirely. It doesn't just get lumped in with all the other bad deeds just because they all fall under the category of "crime". And it shouldn't carry the same punishment. Jail for theft. Fair. Jail for murder? Doesn't fit.
And there is the eventuality of the release of prisoners, and I realize you think they should not be released. But then what? You think they should stay in jail until they die? Every last one? They could escape too. And when they escape and commit more murder, that's an outright failure of the criminal justice system. Somebody should be held accountable. Put the judge who gave the light sentence in prison in the criminal's place if he escapes.
It's absurd that a monster like Clifford Olsen gets parole hearings every 2 years now that his 25 year sentence is finished. It's a ridiculous mockery of justice that the families of the dead children have to keep opening old wounds, and have to convince the courts to keep him in there. They should already be convinced right off the bat, without the hearings. The guy has no rights, and it's time the courts realize that. Rights are supposed to protect people from malicious acts by court and government, not get monsters off with minimal penalty. That was never the intention. So use rights as intended. Don't extrapolate them to every possible situation, and every possible criminal.
I never believed that the death penalty costs more than 70 years prison time. That's ridiculous. Something is wrong there. If that is the case, reform the system. That's not really a good argument against the DP. That can be changed if it's true.
Yeah, Tookie Williams, a violent gang criminal, speaking out against gang violence while in prison. Hypocrite. Yeah, good riddance.
It's obvious you are unwilling to analyze your reasons for having a belief so I am not going to respond anymore after this. In order for someone to be put to death they must go through a certain number of appeals in the court system. This costs the state money. Look up the numbers. It's costs waaaay more to put someone to death than it does to keep them in jail their entire life. The reason why this system is so prolonged and detailed is because they are judging someone's life not a few years of their life. Look up the statistics and find out how many people have been wrongfully put to death vs people who have been released and re-jailed for another murder. Also, if you think the world is better off without Tookie Williams then you need to take a hard look in the mirror when thinking about how you want the world to progress. I beg of you to please use your last sentence in a public protest where you can't hide behind your little internet wall. Listen to how people (including pro-death penalty) react to it. Like I said I will not respond to any more of your posts. It would be way too depressing.
share[deleted]
Everything Michael Ross did there was self-serving. Nothing more. He actively protests the death penalty because he's gonna receive it. Then he accepts the death penalty (no choice really) to get into heaven. It's still all for him, to better HIS situation. He doesn't care about the families of the victims. And remorse, even real remorse, is too little too late.
"Sure, he raped and killed many women because of sexual sadism, and mostly because of mental problems"
Oh, that's all he did? He's still a good guy. I like how you wrote that sentence as if what he did is no big deal. The "because" parts sound like more excuses. It was only because of sexual sadism, come on. Give the guy a break! And mental problems don't add up to raping and murdering MANY women. Evil handles that just fine. Many people have mental problems and don't do things like that. BS at its worst.
"and yet he was arrested in 1984"
"And yet"!? What? Because he shouldn't have been arrested? WTF!
"(even though they were vengeful, never forgave him and wanted him dead)"
Fair enough. Some things are unforgivable. Did he get his wish? I bet the families will never forgive him, dead or no. I know I wouldn't.
If there is a heaven, this guy sure ain't gettin' there. He'll burn in hell as he deserves. Christ, if a guy like that doesn't go to hell, then who the hell does?! People who do worse things than raping and killing many women? Is there such a worse thing? I'd like someone to tell me what that could possibly be.
I know you guys have opinions and all that, but come on. Forgiveness!? HEAVEN!? For Christ's sake, does heaven have any standards whatsoever!?
And yes, may the victims, and ONLY the victims, rest in the eternal peace they deserve. May Michael Ross () burn and rot in hell as he deserves.
[deleted]
LOL
shareBasically you came in, stated nonsense which was shot down brutally by mradam, and ignored him so you would have an excuse not to respond. Nice contribution there. Not once did he insult you. The guy just owned you.
shareThank you, rugerdon. It's true, isn't it? The anti-DPs are about sweet sentiment and idealistic utopian notions, but no common sense in ANY of their arguments. They're arguing kindness and gentleness toward the worst people ever to walk the Earth. Whenever they get their way, their second chances and reform, the result is inevitably the same in most cases:
"A repeat offender was arrested again for rape and murder. He was known to police and government as a dangerous convicted felon."
But still he was free to sh!t on our sweet and innocent children, women, whoever. WHY IS THIS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN?! JUST HOW NECESSARY IS THE 2ND, 3RD, ETC. TIME THESE AZSHOLES HURT PEOPLE?! And why?! Why?! Because then we're taking the high road, and being humane in our treatment of criminals?! Are these bureaucrats really happy with themselves when they CAUSE (YES, CAUSE) the deaths and torture of more innocent people because they allowed these scumbags more and more chances for change? How many innocent lives is one scumbag worth to the system anyway? Apparently a lot.
Then their position is always the shrugging with the "We didn't know he was gonna kill again. How could we know?" The answer of course is "Because you were supposed to prepare for the worst case scenario." Every competent person on the planet knows that. Except no, they just wasted another innocent life for no good reason.
I just don't understand it. (Or, I guess I do understand it. It's stupid. There, fully understood.)
If someone is against the death penalty it means they are opposed to people being executed it doesn't mean they condone letting murderers or violent criminals out and want these people treated kindly or gently. Your arguments apply to people who don't support life sentences for murder but not to the death penalty and I don't know anyone who advocates kind treatment towards convicted murderers so I don't know who you are referring to there.
The possibility of the wrongly convicted getting executed, the lack of deterrence of the death penalty, the expense of it and the pain that the death penalty causes the families of those executed are reasons for being against the death penalty and they have nothing to do with sentiment or idealism. There are strong arguments in favor of the death penalty but I feel the arguments against it are stronger. If you feel that the arguments for it are stronger then I can respect your view but to say that their is no common sense to any argument against the death penalty is a rather narrow view.
You don't have to condone letting criminals out and treating them kindly and gently. Those are just the consequences of your point of view. They happen because of it. Anti-DP people don't condone recidivism of these criminals either, they just allow it to happen.
"The possibility of the wrongly convicted getting executed" -- killers like Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo are guilty, they've admitted their crimes, gave sensitive information, or videotaped themselves committing the crimes. These are the only types of people I'm referring to. So your argument there doesn't work.
"the lack of deterrence of the death penalty" -- of course it deters, and those executed are 100% guaranteed not to repeat their crimes. So your argument there doesn't work either.
"the expense of it" -- the expense doesn't have to be a lot; like I said, the two cases I mentioned above don't require appeal after appeal. But I get your point there. It does seem ridiculous to me though, that a process of several months to a year of trial, conviction/acquittal, appeal, and execution should cost more than full support of a person's life / activities / ?rights!? for 50+ years. That's just inefficiency; not necessary. I'm talking about reforming those costs if that is the case. Something to look at.
"the pain that the death penalty causes the families of those executed" -- the executed did that to his families, not the system. When someone does something that has a direct consequence from the system, the system is not to blame. It's the person causing the system to do that. Much like if someone jumps out onto the highway in front of a moving car, you don't blame the driver of the car for hitting that person, because the person caused the collision by jumping out onto the highway. Same thing here: a person commits a terrible crime in a land that administers the death penalty for such a crime, well believe it or not, he's going to get the death penalty. We're not responsible for saving these people from themselves. That's the responsibility of every individual adult in the world, regardless of who he chooses to blame.
Think about this: if you say the death penalty is not a deterrent, then you're referring to a nothing-to-lose attitude of these potential criminals, right? Then by the same token, if you're saying criminals should only ever be put in prison for the rest of their lives for these crimes, then they really have nothing to lose there either, once they're already in there. Now they can commit any crime possible (escape, kill other inmates, whatever) and their punishment can never get any worse than it already is. Life in prison (without parole) has absolutely no deterrent effect to the people already serving their sentences. It almost encourages them to try to escape. That makes them even more dangerous.
Life sentences for killers to not lead to them getting let out and certainly don't lead to kind and gentle treatment. One of the reasons the United Kingdom abolished the death penalty is because juries were letting people guilty of murder off with lesser sentences such as manslaughter because while support for the death penalty was high in public opinion polls to actually have to play a part in someone getting executed was hard for people. In cases such as those the death penalty led to more dangerous killers out on the streets.
Even if the law was changed so that only murderers who admit to crimes, give sensitive information or videotape themselves committing the crimes there could still be innocent people executed as there have been cases of people being beaten and forced to confess to crimes (Barry Fairchild was executed as the result of a confession but there is now strong evidence that he was beaten into that confession and Timothy Evans was hanged based on a confession that the police pushed him into because he was simple and easily led). Also if confession to a murder is going to lead to an execution then people aren't going to confess.
Saying of course it deters is not proof of deterrence. States without the death penalty have higher rates of murder than those that don't, the United Kingdom did not experience an increase in the murder rate after they abolished the death penalty and in Canada the murder rate went down after the death penalty was abolished. It is true when a person is executed they cannot kill again - which is one of the pro-death penalty arguments I agree with - but the death penalty does not lead to a less violent society.
A person getting knocked down by a car getting hit by a car is the automatic reaction. The death penalty is not an automatic reaction as many countries function fine without it and in those countries the families of the murderer are not put through that pain so if the state executes people they are - along with the murderer - responsible for that pain.
The nothing to lose argument also applies to people who are going to be executed in fact you could argue they have even less to lose. Besides a person in prison can still be punished so they do have things to lose.
"Even if the law was changed so that only murderers who admit to crimes, give sensitive information or videotape themselves committing the crimes there could still be innocent people executed"
You addressed the confession thing, but not the sensitive information or videotaping. Looks like you overlooked that in your attempt to argue with me. That doesn't cut it. The 2 examples of criminal scum I gave above are guilty, and I'm saying execution should only be used in cases like that. So no, your "beaten into a confession" counter-argument is not good enough. I agree though, that simple confession should not be enough to convict and execute someone.
"Saying of course it deters is not proof of deterrence."
I wasn't attempting to prove it, I just stated it. Some things are obvious and don't require really any back-story (although I've researched and proved it to myself anyway; gave the evidence in a post long ago, no need for me to dig it up again). Comparing between different states doesn't work either, because they're independent. Many places start executing criminals in response to high crime rates, it's not that the high crime rates are the response to executing people. You may have the correlation between the 2 events, but your causation is backwards.
"A person getting knocked down by a car getting hit by a car is the automatic reaction. The death penalty is not an automatic reaction as many countries function fine without it"
But when the death penalty is already instated in a land, then yes it is an automatic reaction to heinous crime. It's already in the criminal code. So these people do bring it on themselves because they knew that executions take place where they live, but they committed the crimes anyway. Therefore, they asked for it. They did it to themselves. Just like when someone steals something and gets put in prison. Is prison to blame for imprisoning him? No. The criminal is. Because he took the appropriate actions to land himself in prison. Just like murderers and rapists. They took the actions which lead to death row, so they put themselves on death row. I'm not talking about the countries that "function fine without it". That's not the point and you know it. I'm talking about the countries which have the death penalty.
It's a fundamental rule of logic:
A implies B.
A.
Therefore B.
Person commits terrible crime implies person gets executed.
Person commits terrible crime.
Therefore person gets executed.
The first premise:
Person commits terrible crime implies person gets executed
is (undeniably) true in countries/states that have the death penalty for such crimes.
The second premise:
Person commits terrible crime
is true for those people such as the 2 azsholes I gave as examples (for more reasons than simply confessions).
One is forced to conclude the conclusion:
person gets executed
Are you arguing that that fundamental rule of logic is false?
I do agree that the murderer's families have to (unfairly) go through a lot of pain when their loved one gets executed. I sympathize with that. But again, that's the fault of the murderer, not the system. (see fundamental rule of logic section above). And aren't they in pain from shame anyway because they have a loser rapist/murderer in their family? Not to say that makes it okay to cause them pain. It's just that the murderer has caused all of his family's pain. That's my point.
I'll say again, I think it should be entirely up to the victim's family. And they should be informed of possible outcomes such as the dead murderer can't feel bad about his crimes any more once he's dead, and death could be considered an easy way out for him. Inform them about the consequences, and let them decide. After that, do whatever the victim's family wants. The murderer owes the victim's family everything anyway; his life, his stuff, his money, his everything.
"It's obvious you are unwilling to analyze your reasons for having a belief"
That's funny, since I'm the one who's done the most analysis. You said "unwilling to analyze" right after my big, long analysis. Irony. That above line is exactly what I think of you.
"released and re-jailed for another murder"
Unacceptable. The other murder didn't have to happen at all. I've said this many times.
"if you think the world is better off without Tookie Williams"
The world better off without a murdering gang member? I think so. Better if that hypocrite never existed at all.
"need to take a hard look in the mirror"
OMG, seriously? What a cop-out! I'll say to you: You should really do some soul-searching. See, it's easy to say "you obviously [this]" or "you should [that]". There are no strong arguments there.
"where you can't hide behind your little internet wall."
Also funny. I'm hiding, but you're not? I encourage you to do the same. Try peddling that sh!t to the public. And listen how people (most of whom support the death penalty) react to it.
So don't respond. Won't make you any less wrong.
You softies are hilarious to me. The violent criminals deserve as many chances as the dead victims are able to get. So how many is that?
Wow..
You really sound like a bitter and cold person.
Unwilling to forgive.
To think that a man is able to judge if another man should be allowed to live. It just makes me sick.
And then you just label us as "softies".. Why don't you just come out and say what it seems like you really want to say; "fags" or "homos".
I'd rather be naive and say "forgive and forget" then hold a grudge and have hate in my heart.
Hate builds more hate..
revenge builds more revenge..
Unwilling to forgive?
I forgave lots of people over the years. I forgave a friend for hitting me once. A friend I still have to this day. And there are some other scenarios as well. So unwilling to forgive? No. Nice try. I just forgive when it's reasonable to forgive. Not when it's stupid to do so.
"To think that a man is able to judge if another man should be allowed to live. It just makes me sick."
Being a softie will do that. And that sounds a lot like what the criminals we're talking about have done. They judged if others should be allowed to live, and killed them. Do these criminals make you sick? No, obviously you hold them in high regard. Worth defending.
You're not BEING LABELLED softies. You ARE softies. Fags, homos? Your words, not mine. Again, nice try.
"Hate builds more hate", "revenge builds more revenge"
More bullsh!t cliches. Like "an eye for an eye makes everyone blind". That's the way it used to be: an eye for an eye. And there was no time when everyone was blind. Just another bullsh!t cliche.
Anyone got anything that I CAN'T successfully shoot down in a few short sentences? Anyone at all?
You guys just don't care about innocent people. (Hey, I can make assumptions about your character, too.) You would rather let a criminal escape and kill more people (yes, indirectly that's what you guys CAUSE to happen with your point of view), than take care of the situation permanently. Your priorities are pretty messed up. What's more important: the life of one monster, or the lives of many innocent people? You guys have to actually think about that one. And you probably choose the monster's life.
And for the record, I am a very kind and warm-hearted individual. I take care of family and friends to the best of my ability. I make people laugh. But I don't love monsters. That kind of thing is for you people, I guess.
of course you'll "shoot down" the arguments right away.
You don't want to change.
You're comfortable right where you are..
And of course you can make assumptions, but that doesn't make them correct.
So that argument was just plain stupid.
I'm NOT defending their actions. At all.
But I would rather ask: "What makes a person do this?" Instead of labeling him/her as a monster. Or claiming that they are monters.
People ARE not "what they do", but they DO get shaped by it.
But instead of executing them... why not try to figure out where they or their parents went wrong? So we can maybe try to heal them?
Huh?
Naaw.. let's just kill them! They don't deserve life!
I'll say it again.
I'd rather be naive and forgive & forget, than be revengeful and hate these "monsters".
"I'd rather be naive"
You got your wish.
why thank you
shareIts funny how the whole legal system works now a days. A person can break into your home and proceed to rape and murder your family. You manage to take the guy out or injury them and whamo you are in jail. You are in the wrong for firing at the guy in your own house. Thats a little off topic but it still eats me up a bit.
Anyway the whole life setence thing is down right lame. You figure the person murdered some people and he gets to has housing till the day he dies. You pretty much pay that person for their murder. "Well they have all that time to think about what they done." Yeaaaaaa....some how I doubt someone that has no feelings and has a cold heart enough to murder a load of people mauls over that stuff.
People change and can become model citzens and all right? Yeaa....I don't think so. Its human nature to lie your way out of trouble and you will do anything in your power to get out of that. All of a sudden you found god and you feel terrible for the acts you have done. You are now a reformed man and can go out in the world.
The next time he goes back to his old ways either he will figure out a way to not get caught or he is a dumbass and gets caught again. Thats still a huge chance for that happening all over again.
It was extremely manipulative and very sad that Robbins, Sarandon & Prejean had the absolute, unbelievable temerity to show Poncelette (Penn) strapped to the gurney 'standing up', metaphorically and unrealistically posing him in a Christ-on-the-Cross position. Those about to be executed are NEVER in that position, they are always laid prone upon the gurney with the arms in a much shallower angle.
...but what does Truth matter when one has an overweening agenda just chock full of tasty, juicy propaganda?
Propoganda that has obviously worked pretty well judging from some of the posts on this board. that mradam-3 guy has basically owned everyone without a single intelligent response. I've seen lame cliches thrown out with no logic attached to them and nothing but a bunch of whiners who refuse to live in the real world. I guess they prefer an imaginary utopia where noone has to get their hands dirty. What some of the "softies" don't seem to realize is that this is a world where there are people who commit EVIL crimes like murder and rape those people must be held acountable. Earlier in this thread someone said that a person isn't their actions. That is utter crap. The choices we make and the actions we take define who we are. Those things are what affect us and those around us. What the hell defines us if not our actions?? We are allowed basic human rights, yes. We FORFEIT some of those rights when we start killing and raping people. Please spare me any responses that rhyme or that you might have read off of a piece of posterboard at a protest. Try to think for yourself.
shareHow about thinking outside the box. The death penalty is an extremely sick act, plain and simple. Turning a perfectly healthy person into a maggot feast by popping their heart with lethal drugs, snapping their neck in mid-air suspension, electrocution, gassing.
How about instead we start using people like this as test subjects for the rest of their lives, instead of innocent animals. Tie them up, cage them, squirt shampoo or chemicals in their eyes and the like. They have no rights except food and a place to sleep.
"The death penalty is an extremely sick act, plain and simple"
Plain and simple? Actually, no, that is just one opinion, that's all. And the "popping their heart" and "snapping their neck" stuff is nothing compared to what the murderer has done to his victims. So it's actually fair that that stuff happens to the murderer. Nothing wrong with fairness.
Your test subject idea is superb, though. I LOVE it. That's the kind of creativity we need in our criminal justice system. What better way to find out the real carcinogenic effects of a new arthritis drug, than by trying it on actual human beings? What better way to see the effects of chemicals sprayed into a human being's eyes, than by observing it with an actual human being? Instead of the poor rats and other animals (who didn't hurt anybody) having to endure torture for our benefit. I really do like that idea.
Nobody said that rapists and murderers shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. Just that the death penalty isn't the only form of punishment.
shareclassic straw man fallacy. you know damn well that wasn't my point.
but it's all good. you've pretty much ignored the good posts in this thread and just spread your crapoganda. enjoy your utopia and ill continue to keep things real.
"you know damn well that wasn't my point"
If by writing that softies don't realize "this is a world where there are people who commit EVIL crimes like murder, rape those people must be held accountable" you weren't saying that anti-dp people's beliefs don't hold the guilty accountable then what did you mean?
"you've pretty much ignored the good posts in this thread"
I haven't read much of the thread but I have responded to all the posts I have. Maybe when I'm stuck on a long journey I'll find the time to read all the posts and answer the points but its certainly not because I don't have answers. I have debated lengthily with your favorite poster and he admitted I made some good points but we agreed to disagree.
"enjoy your utopia and ill continue to keep things real"
If by keep things real you mean dismiss anyone who doesn't think the way you do as not thinking at all then yes you probably will. If you don't admit that the death penalty hurts more people than just murderers or that it is an effective deterrent then you are the one that is living in a utopia.
"If by writing that softies don't realize "this is a world where there are people who commit EVIL crimes like murder, rape those people must be held accountable" you weren't saying that anti-dp people's beliefs don't hold the guilty accountable then what did you mean?"
Read the entire post this time. Hands dirty. Forfeit basic human rights. Holding them accountable would be executing them. Very simple. I am well aware that the anti-dp would rather have them in prison. My argument is that this is not properly holding them "accountable." I believe it is being soft. You made it sound as if i said
anti-dp believed in doing nothing.
"If by keep things real you mean dismiss anyone who doesn't think the way you do as not thinking at all then yes you probably will."
I'd love for you to point out how I've done this.
"If you don't admit that the death penalty hurts more people than just murderers"
Again, did i ever say that the death penalty doesn't hurt anyone other than the murderer? Wait until the knee jerk passes, then read what i have posted before going into your little "chant." You are filling in blanks for stuff i haven't posted. who the hell is my "favorite poster?" Since you are putting all these words in my mouth and picking my favorite things, can you pick my favorite color too? i like midnight blue and purple but am really on the fence.
Sure it is sad for the murderer's family and friends, but the murderer still committed a crime (or likely crimes) bad enough to face execution. This is the murderer's fault, not the executioner's. There are people who commit crimes so evil that they forfeit basic human rights. I am referring to life. They forfeit the right to live. Do you believe this is cruel? Do you believe prison is worse?
"or that it is an effective deterrent"
I agree. If only it could deter appeals and court costs.
Also very rarely do innocent people get executed, and you know this. Innocent people die in prison too. People die making cars too, but that doesn't mean we should stop doing that.
i'm afraid i do live in the real world. i accept that there is real evil and that there are people out there without decency. I'm not in denial. I know what evil humans are capable of. Some of those people no longer deserve the mercy of other humans. It's sad, but true. Fortunately there are two sides to the coin and a huge middle. i guess a coin is a terrible analogy. Maybe a pencil..
The point is we can see why he ended up this way. Look at how his family is and how he was brought up. Family is always a factor in how you are brought up.
shareI think this is a superb film, and backs up, actually makes my belief that the death penalty is wrong even stronger. Man should not play god. Yes, what he did was awful, it ruined lives. He should be punished forever. However I think killing someone because they killed someone else is only lowering those concerned to their level. Who are we to decide if someone lives or dies, anymore than the murderers? The main points that hit me in this film are the small details... the buffet provided for the 'event' that is a man's execution. The precision of the timing... they wait for 12 on the dot, as if that really matters when putting a man to death? It's the formality, the procedure and politics and BS involved that just make it that much more sick, whilst it's supposedly 'humane'. Death is NOT justice.
share[deleted]
ty :)
shareWatching the lethal injection in this movie was probably THE only time in my life I actually could relate to someone who was dying. Usually death scenes are convenientally manipulated or just plain sappy in movies, but the death scene of Sean Penn in Dead Man Walking actually made me think how it must feel to know that one is dying and what is on one's mind in the final moments of your life. We might talk, hear or see a lot about death but very rarely have I, at least, thought about how it must be to see your life end before your eyes. This is one movie where I got to experience that feeling and just thinking about it gives me goosebumps.
share