Dead Man Walking
Essay Preview: Dead Man Walking
Report this essay
Dead Man Walking
The film, Dead Man Walking was made in 1995, and was adopted from Sister Helen Prejeans 1993 autobiographical book, which has the same title. It examines one of the most highly debated controversial issues of our time – capital punishment. Since the protagonist of a film is regarded as the “good guy,” I would apply this label to Sister Helen Prajean, played by Susan Sarandon, and that of the antagonist, or the “bad guy” to Matthew Poncelet, played by Sean Penn. However, even though Sean Penn is definitely the “bad guy,” by definition, my feelings changed as the film progressed with Seans eventual understanding of the “enormity of his transgression.” (Rozan, 17) The story presented in the film attracts the viewer because of the strong emotions, which are evoked by the violence of the murder and rape, but also by the actors themselves.
The issues of crime and punishment are examined from multiple viewpoints – the victims family members, the killers, society, the lawyer, and a melding of all views within the religious conviction portrayed by Susan Sarandon. Your feelings go through many changes, as each view is examined and reexamined, as the story unfolds with more and more information concerning the actual crime and the events prior, during, and after its commission. The film unfolds with Penns emotions moving from “defiance to remorse,” (Rozan, 17) without actually providing a absolute judgment to the viewer, as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong-good or evil. As Sarandon tells Penn “There are spaces of sorrow only God can touch.” (Rozan, 17).
The concepts of good and evil are clearly defined within the context of the film by the parameters of our criminal justice system and society in general. A very clear message is given-the perpetrator of such heinous crimes will pay with his life. This view is not challenged by the film. The concept of capital punishment, however, is questioned, as the “workings” of death row are explained and eventually seen. Penn gradually comes to an awareness of himself and his place in our society by “fighting” his eventual death by execution. You end up wondering whether the cause of justice to society and specifically to the victims and their families could possibly be served just as well by a life sentence, without the possibility of parole. You further ask yourself if you could actually administer the lethal injection yourself, rather than having someone else do it.
The film makes a political statement concerning capital punishment, but doesnt overtly “preach” its message. The message is provided by Penns quest for his souls redemption via Sarandons interaction. Dead Man Walkings message has the viewer questioning beliefs, which he was previously sure of. Theoretically, you may think that capital punishment in this case is a foregone conclusion, but as you get to understand Penns character the “black and white” of the case now has shades of gray. The writer-director, Tim Robbins explores the psychological and moral relationship that develops between Penn and Sarandon. “The faint possibility that evil and goodness can find a way of speaking to one another, the dim hope that the former can be in some sense redeemed, the later in some sense educated.” (Schickel, 69) is proffered for the viewer to think about.
The “rewards” of criminal behavior result in Penns death. The cost of violent, unconscionable acts result in his execution. The crime cannot be justified, but the viewer cannot help but try to understand Penn as a human being that has to pay for an act, which society cannot condone or accept. You ask yourself “How could he do such a terrible thing?” Understanding is a tough challenge which is met by Sarandons character because she will not give up on Penns ability to understand how wrong he was and to seek forgiveness from a higher power, since society cannot forgive him. We know he is guilty, but the film does cause us to question what we may have formerly thought was totally right-capital punishment. You end up asking yourself, whether Penns personal redemption is worth foregoing his execution. Can good come out of evil? Can God truly forgive? If you say you are truly sorry and repent sincerely, is it enough? Are there really answers to questions such as these within our earthly realm, or should these questions only be resolved by God? I really do not know.
Many strong cases can be made in principle for and against capital punishment. The argument that is in favor is based on justice, and the nature of a moral community, which requires that each person has to respect the life and liberty of others. Those who commit vicious crimes immediately
destroy the basis on which a moral community rests, and they give up their rights to citizenship and also to life itself. The argument against is based on love and the nature of an ideal community in which forgiveness and the hope for redemption and rehabilitation are the key elements. Protection of the innocent requires that criminals be isolated, possibly for life..
For the past decades capital punishment has been one of the most hotly contested political issues in America, but this debate is definitely a complicated one. Capital punishment is a legal, practical, philosophical, social, political, but also a moral question. The notion of deterrence has been at the very center of the practical debate over the question of capital punishment. Most of us assume that we execute murderers primarily because we believe it will discourage others from becoming murderers. Retentionists (people for capital punishment) have long asserted the deterrent power of capital punishment as an obvious fact. The fear of death deters people from committing crimes. But, abolitionists (people against capital punishment) believe that deterrence is little more than a obsurd assumption.
Abolitionists claim that capital punishment does not deter murderers from killing or killing again. They base most of their argument against deterrence mainly on statistics. States that use it extensively show a higher murder rate than those that have abolished the death penalty. Also, states that have abolished the death penalty and then reinstituted it show no significant change in the murder rate. Stemming from the research I have done, I have found no record of change in the rate of homicides in acertain city or a state following an execution.
Most retentionists argue that no statistical evidence can prove that capital punishment doesnt deter potential criminals. There is absolutely no way show, with any certainty,