MovieChat Forums > Dead Man Walking (1996) Discussion > So one the film's main points and messag...

So one the film's main points and messages is that -

posted 4 years ago by TheMan18 (13183)
16 replies | jump to latest

- although such characters like our main antagonist in this movie are wrong and horrible for doing what they did, committing a brutal murder, death sentence in law is STILL wrong and unethical and even such guilty men as the one here don't necessarily deserve it either.

So its like - yes, murderers are wrong but death penalty is NOT the answer, for a variety of reasons, even if some people may think that they "deserve" it, correct?

Would life imprisonment be any better or more ethical though?

[–] TheMan18 (13183) 4 years ago

Again, who are the "good guys" and "bad guys" here and "heroes" and "villains", or can it at times, real life complexity-wise, be intertwined, in a flux, in a mix, etc, and this is not an action movie type of scenario, hence why little bit maybe, even the main bad guy may deserve at least some understanding if not sympathy or empathy, unlike, of course, his victims?

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

I once heard a radio interview with a priest who ministered to death row inmates, he thought it was God's Work to try to redeem their souls a little. When the interviewer asked how he dealt with knowing that the people he were ministering to had committed horrific crimes, he said "They're all innocent.", at least in his mind. Apparently, he couldn't do the job he felt called to do unless he convinced himself that the people whose souls he was trying to save were all innocent and unfairly prosecuted, he may not have realized it but he couldn't actually deal with the reality of what had led them there.

Do I have a point? Probably no more than the movie dies.

There are rational reasons for being opposed to the death penalty, if you believe that "killing is wrong" then of course you have to believe that even legal killing is wrong, and of course as long as there's any possibility of new evidence being produced it's nice to leave someone who might possibly be innocent alive. But anyone who opposes the death penalty out of sentimental feelings towards the murderers has a few screws loose.

[–] TheMan18 (13183) 4 years ago

And on the day of 9/11, yes 2001's American major terrorist attacks, there was even a religious show, a clip of which is still available on YouTube, which had, on the very day the tragedy happened and was announced, religious priests praying not only for the 9/11 victims that died in The Twin Towers and the hi-jacked crashed aeroplanes, but also the suicidal terrorists themselves, saying "Oh, but they too were once innocent precious little children who at the time never hurt anyone", AND I ALSO can't help but wonder, given how even at the time the US government was often criticized for its unfair military actions in certain countries and whatnot, were those people ALSO aware of it, and is THAT why partially, besides them being ALSO human beings of course, those religious people on that show also somewhat showed some sympathy for?

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

I can see why the priests did that. I understand that in terrorist organizations, the cleverest and most evil ones, the ones who get into a position of authority, will convince the grunts at the bottom of the organization to go out and kill themselves, because they're no loss, and I'm sure the monumentally evil fucks who live to kill enjoy the process of talking some poor stupid bastard into committing suicide.

But that's me, a person who can keep a tiny bit of sympatthy for people I despise along with all the contempt, because I know what brutalization by life's unfairness and bone-evil people can do to a human being. Not that that shred of sympathy is ever going to motivate me to keep such people alive, we're better off without them and I've got better things to do with my public spirit. There's a pandemic on, after all.

[–] TheMan18 (13183) 4 years ago

In Michael Haneke's 1997 movie "Funny Games", the director Haneke in the interview stated that he was critical of the scene where the injured and about to be killed woman shoots one of her captors, claiming that the audience is "cheering murder", despite the fact that the man was a dangerous psychotic serial killer and a major threat to the woman who could've been killed by him at any time.

[–] TheMan18 (13183) 4 years ago

" But anyone who opposes the death penalty out of sentimental feelings towards the murderers has a few screws loose."

True, but then again, this movie goes to quite some length in trying to show the "humanity" behind our guilty murderous character who is on death row, and whilst it of course doesn't say even remotely that what he did is even forgivable let alone "acceptable" in ANY way whatsoever, it sort of tries to make us feel bad for him in a way whilst also wanting us to condemn the death penalty as a system as opposed to thinking "yeah, that bastard deserves it" and end on a triumphant major positive note with a feeling of victory behind it.

[–] chilidoggg (14584) 2 years ago

"religious priests praying not only for the 9/11 victims that died in The Twin Towers and the hi-jacked crashed aeroplanes, but also the suicidal terrorists themselves, saying "Oh, but they too were once innocent precious little children who at the time never hurt anyone"

I know even less about Islam than I know about Christianity, so I'm probably wrong, but I think one of the concepts of Christianity is that Christians can't condemn people who haven't been told about "the Good News of the Risen Christ." If people are raised in places like Saudi Arabia or China, where Christian evangelism is illegal or extremely difficult (allegedly) it's NOT their fault. And I don't think "googling" Christianity and saying "I'll pass" counts. I think the rule is that Christians have a DUTY to evangelize rigorously, not give up after one attempt. I suppose at some point one has to cut bait and move on, and then the nonbelievers can be condemned all day long...

[–] chilidoggg (14584) 2 years ago

"Apparently, he couldn't do the job he felt called to do unless he convinced himself that the people whose souls he was trying to save were all innocent and unfairly prosecuted"

I'm not a good Catholic, but I did do 12 years of Catholic schools. If this was a Catholic priest, I think the bottom line is that his job is to bring the sinner back into God's grace, and no matter how terrible the sin, the sinner can be clean as a whistle IF he confesses the sin, owns it (mea culpa - no bullshit), and asks for forgiveness. And I think that's it. I don't even think the priest has to say anything (but he does say something... I don't remember it's been so long...) I was always given a "penance" pray 10 "Our Fathers" and 20 "Hail Marys" or such, that's what they think is good for the kids, but I think penance is NOT part of Catholic Doctrine. I think Judaism requires restitution to be made by the sinner to the injured, but I don't think that's in Catholicism. I could be wrong about all this. Maybe it really only needs the confession and the mea culpa... One of the things in Confession is The Act of Contrition, which ends with "I firmly resolve with the help of Thy Grace to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin." Key words being "firmly resolve" meaning you don't get credit if you shoplift a candy bar right after you get out of church and figure you can just go back to confession again and it's all good..

I don't remember if Sean Penn's character was Catholic, maybe it doesn't even matter. And there's probably all sorts of exclusions for mental illness, trauma, brain damaged by drug use (even voluntary) that will allow a sinner to be cleaned even if he can't make a good confession.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

I'm not a Catholic, but I'm under the impression that Holy Confession and whatever penance the priest requires clears the sinner with God... but not necessarily anyone harmed by the sinner's actions. There have been a lot of countries that had Catholicism as a state religion over the last 2,000 years, and although I read a lot of history... not one of those countries ever shut down their legal system and went with confession and penance instead of jail terms or hanging!

And that carried over to the events depicted in this movie by the priest I heard interviewed that one time, I don't believe the priest or nun ever tried to alter the decisions made by the legal system. They were there to save the criminal's soul and not stop the execution, and there had to be something more worthwhile they could do with their time.

[–] chilidoggg (14584) 2 years ago

Well, if you've read a lot of history, as I have, it increasingly becomes evident that the guys with the swords/pikes/guns make the decisions, i.e. the Kings, and the priests are there to frighten the unwashed masses with fire and brimstone... the balance of power fluctuates from time to time... sometimes the unwashed masses get the bonus of eternal paradise if they die trying to get their King some sweet pear orchards or a good seaport...

https://www.firebrimstoneeatery.com/

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Yup, you've read a lot of history all right!

[–] TheMan18 (13183) 2 years ago

"But anyone who opposes the death penalty out of sentimental feelings towards the murderers has a few screws loose."
Maybe its not so much completely sentimental feelings towards them but we assume they may not all deserve it and that other means of punishment are better and more ethical even towards the guilty perpetrators?

[–] liscarkat (19396) 2 years ago

The death penalty is the answer, because it has a perfect record as a deterrent. The criminal who is executed has never, ever, in any case, harmed another person again.

[–] LogicalLeftist (869) 2 years ago

it doesn't though. we know

1. it doesn't actually deter
2. we've sent innocent people to die.

the thing about killing them is there is no recourse later if they are exonerated. so you in fact committed a far worse transgression.

[–] TheMan18 (13183) 2 years ago

Are they really this beyond redemption? Do a lot of them really reoffend in that manner?

[–] TheMan18 (13183) 2 years ago

And 2 Otter - watch "A Short Film About Killing" (1988) as well from Poland, in that film, spoilers alert, it definitely DOES argue against death penalty in general AND it also does ask us to feel some sympathy for the lead character convicted of and sentenced to death for 'murder'. And its a brilliant film too.