So Gale basically committed......

Mr. morgan_mourning,
nail hit on the head.

"... they had to deliberately frame Gable, and get his lawyer in on it to be SURE he would be "unjustly" sentenced to death. If anything(?), it almost comes across as pro-death penalty ...

Let's see. You say he was deliberately framed and then unjustly sentenced to death and you find this suggests a pro-death penalty attitude - the execution of one not guilty of a capital crime? What an interesting (mis)use of my language.


Only two things are actually knowable:
It is now and you are here. All else is merely a belief.

Why would they not hold the truth? That's what the perpetrators do. It's the job of the system to find out the truth and apparently they weren't able, thus proving that the system is flawed.

He may have been murdered but it wasn't by the Death Penalty, or its advocates. He was set up, had evidence planted, and much more evidence covered up by people who knew better. Each and every one of them is culpable, but not the system that is designed to default to "innocent" at every step of the procedure, from indictment to the multiple appeals. If ANY of that information had come to light earlier, he would have been cut loose with the court's apologies (and lawyers looking to sue everyone involved), and those who were guilty of trying to get him killed via an elaborate "suicide by cop" would have ended up in jail instead.

And David Gale himself had to be willing to go along with the process, from start to finish. This is not the same as (say) standing in front of a battle tank as a form of protest, but him trying to argue "we fooled the system so thoroughly that they killed me, and I was innocent". If he were so innocent, he should have released this information after the first DP sentence came out, and used that fact -- "innocent people can get convicted" -- as an argument against the policy, not waited until it was too late to do anything about it.

But the death penalty, as a process, is not to blame. If you choose to believe otherwise, that is your right, but don't use a fictional portrayal as fact to bolster your argument. Deliberately subverting a process only speaks as to the wrongness of the subversion, not the normal operation.

You're just not very bright, are you?

The movie is intentionally unclear and unrealistic. It is not a strong case for anything important unless you think it is important to show Laura Linney naked.