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.
shareOP, If that's what you think, then I think you've missed the point.
Life is just one damned thing after another - Elbert Hubbard
i'm not sure if this film really wants us to feel for Matt. i thought it's quite more about ACCEPTING mistakes. at least finally Matt accepted his mistake. i know it doesnt mean much, or it wont bring victims back to life but it's better than nothing.
what about "universal" murderers who invade everywhere, kill children by dropping bombs and never feel any regret? they look at our faces everyday through cameras and laugh. blood is their meal.
of course i didnt feel sorry for Matt at all, he's a white supremacist piece of *beep* (you can also see that type of people here on IMDb, look at the threads about "ethnic background"s of people)
normally i dont give a *beep* when someone like Matt dies but i'm still against death penalty. besides, it's an "easy" exit. i hope that piece of *beep* was raped by some giant black men everyday in prison and survived for decades by wishing to die. a long and painful dead
Hmm,
This opens up a whole bag of worms.
One part of the movie I didn't like was where Poncelet is strapped to the machine ready to be executed and he has a 'crucifixion' appearance to him. Since the best known victim of crucifixion is Jesus, I feel it kinda was a bit 'wrong'. I know that the vast majority of victims of crucifixion were common criminals (much like Poncelet), and I know the parallels that were trying to be drawn, but it just didn't work for me.
There is no way on earth that I'm trying to vindicate Poncelet of his actions, however what I think the movie tries to show is that he wasn't 'as guilty' as he seemed. He was caught up with a bad crowd and as he was a weak character he committed acts that were reprehensible.
Please see the other Sean Penn movie which touches on a similar topic - Casualties of War. In that movie a person who stands up for what is right ends up being somewhat victimised, and indeed a weak character in the movie commits a rape even though he deep down doesn't want to.
It's a very complex question, and one not easily answer. Did I feel sorry for Poncelet? In some ways yes. That didn't mean that by feeling sorry for him I in any way justified his actions. I felt sorry for his upbringing that allowed him to be caught up with a bad crowd. I feel that society failed him, and in doing so drastically failed the victim.
SpiltPersonality
If the witch, Sr. Prejean really wants to help, she should be involved in rehabilitating criminals before they commit murder, not trying to save them after.
shareIt's not about "saving" a criminal, she acted according to her conviction that to kill "legally" equals to commit murder. Plain and simple.
Listen to your enemy, for God is talking
No I didn't feel sorry for him. Like they said in "The Green Mile" he paid what he was owed and now he is squared with the house.
I am pro Death Penalty for Violent Criminals that are willing to take an innocent life.
If there was a way to program or put in a computer chip into a criminal to make sure they would no longer harm anyone then I could see not having the Death Penalty, but until that is an option we need to protect the innocent.
Even if we took Violent Criminals and locked them up for the rest of their lives, they are still violent in the prison system. They will harm other prisoners that may simply be in there for non violent crimes, and new victims are created. Plus what about all the people that work in Prisons that risk their lives every day making sure the prisoners behave?
I understand there are different degrees of crimes, and different circumstances, but that is why there is different charges for violent crimes.
I also feel there is a cheaper way to perform the death penalty then what they are doing now. I understand not wanting to torture the prisoner but we should be looking at effective execution more then suffering of the prisoner. Why not make a room that combines decapitation and cremation? This would be quick easy deaths, and the fire would kill any type of blood disease and they can sweep up the remains. I'm sure there could be a better design but you get my idea.
If people are so worried about executing the wrong prisoner then that should be up to the prosecutors and judges to make sure the person is guilty.
I had another idea for the Criminals that receive life in prison, we could set up modern day Gladiators and make them fight to the death. Put it on pay per view to pay for it all. We would then be able to have enough money to pay for prisons. I know people will consider that barbaric and violent and not fair to the prisoners, but these are people that have proven to not value life and have the violent nature anyway.
Come visit my blackrosecastle.com
stephentheblackroseenterprises.com
Yeah, they want you to feel for this guy. I guess because he killed someone, yet didn't kill some other person, too. I forget. But the idea of feeling sorry for him is just absurd. That's the movies for you.
share"That's the movies for you."
In the MOVIES for the most part, see action movies as the top example, we also see heroes kill plenty of bad guys and THAT is considered a GOOD thing that not only do nobody so much as question but plenty of people actively APPLAUD, and yet with this movie, for instance, even by a legal system with a controversial method, this is what happens and people see it as wrong. Hmm, I wonder, why that is, or is there like a difference because there you have people fighting for their lives and no choice but to do so with deadly violence, but death penalty alone as a system isn't on that level?
This was my reaction too. Something along the lines of "And nothing of value was lost that day." Let's put the blame for the whole situation right where it belongs. Right on the shoulders of the guy who decided that killing a couple kids was OK. Don't like that you're facing the death penalty? I guess you shouldn't have murdered some kids. Don't like that your Momma's upset by what's going to happen to you because you're facing the death penalty? Guess you should have thought about that before committing the crime that put you in the situation she's upset about.
shareWhile I don't necessarily disagree with you (re: "You do the crime, do the time". We seem to merely divert on what constitutes an appropriate sentence), that black/white response defies understanding the motives behind one's incomprehensible, illegal act. To curb criminal behavior, like that explored from this movie, incorporates cerebral discourse beyond simpleton statements from "Don't murder if you hope to avoid your own vengeance" to "you are the sole reason behind mama's pain." Various factors contribute to one's murderous tendencies, ranging from economical to family abuse to debilitating psychiatric condition uncontrolled by even advanced pharmacological, therapeutic methods and more. As a society, we owe it to ourselves to prevent senseless murders while enacting proactive policy initiatives addressing such social deficiencies.
Given how capital punishment itself undermines proper crime deterrence, potentially executes innocent convicts (case in point, Troy Davis from this past year. When several eyewitnesses recant statements labeling one a killer while that Governor denies clemency, even once doubt now exists, therein lies grounds for claims that state sanctioned murder takes innocents. Was Troy Davis innocent? Unsure....was there reasonable suspicion to base that estimation? Absolutely), invokes excessive budgetary expenditures than life imprisonment absent parole (thereby limiting funds for transportation, schools, affordable housing, unemployment insurance, etc.), often places on Death Row the indigent (mostly minorities) convicts who lacked resources to sufficiently prove their case (as pointed out at the first scene where they plead for clemency), imposes hypocritical authority onto a state to become judge/jury/executioner when they enact, then enforce, legislation condemning murder and other heinous acts while participating in behavior codified through their own laws as "criminal", all purported pros then become flushed by the above
Furthermore, the film's dialogue charters Penn's role as one transforming from petulance to some salvation, given his repentance within the film's last hour (where I dissent from earlier opinions stems off Penn's character
Besides, if the overall message exhibits devout support to a killer, why showcase Sarandon's character's compassion towards the victim's family in numerous scenes?
When God made Tom Cruise, he was only joking.
You make some good points. For me though, I don't really care what the perpetrator's motives were. Someone who commits a crime like the one depicted in this movie does not deserve to see the light of day again. Plenty of other people come from worse situations, like the ones you mentioned (i.e. abused, poor, etc.) and don't resort to acting like an animal, so I don't really believe there is a rhyme or reason to it and I don't really care whether he felt remorse for his actions. He can be as sorry as he likes, but it does not negate what he did... nor should society respond by patting his hand and saying "Oh that's Ok since you said you were sorry." I'm not necessarily advocating "an eye for an eye" here, but I also don't believe that someone who commits a crime like this should get 3 square meals a day, TV, access to university education and all those other perks, especially when there are struggling people who *haven't* committed horrific crimes and don't get these opportunities. I don't see the point in rewarding someone for that behaviour.
I do see your point about the unfairness of the DP in how it is used (i.e. poor people/ minorities being more likely to find themselves facing it due to not being able to get a good lawyer.) And yes, I do agree that something is wrong when someone *can* be wrongfully executed and truthfully I really don't have a solution to make it fairly applied and with no chance of a jury making a mistake. I simply don't see that we as a society need to coddle someone who commits a horrendous crime like the one depicted here, when I don't believe there is a rhyme or reason for why they commit these types of crimes. I don't see a need to try and understand the situation because I don't see that there is anything to understand.
As far as Sister Prejean talking to the victims' families as well as the killer, well... the families didn't really appreciate that much either. I can't say I blame them. If I lost a loved one that way, I certainly wouldn't want to talk to someone who was catering to the animal that brutalized my loved one. That's the equivalent of giving a steak to a dog who ripped out someone's throat.
I certainly wouldn't want to talk to someone who was catering to the animal that brutalized my loved one
I really don't have a solution to make it fairly applied
I simply don't see that we as a society need to coddle someone who commits a horrendous crime
All those things are subjective opinions: non-deterrence, all advanced democracies abolished, and fiscal responsibility.
Non-deterrence: 100% effective against recidivism; no executed criminal has ever reoffended. More brutal executions would indeed lower crime rates.
All advanced democracies abolished: many states in the US have not abolished.
Fiscal responsibility: the systematic Death Row programs are very wasteful of money; that's just a flawed system, not proof that it's a more expensive alternate. It's simply being done wrong. There should be less time on death row, less appeals (none if guilt is certain, and the only grounds for appeals are the ever-ridiculous mental state claims), no comforts, and no entertainment. Explain logically how 1 month of prison followed by a quick hanging or quartering COSTS MORE than decades of food, housing, and treatment.
If you backed capital punishment for the longest time, I don't see how these tiny arguments (opinions) have persuaded you otherwise. They seem funny to me.
[deleted]
All those things are subjective opinions
100% effective against recidivism
More brutal executions would indeed lower crime rates.
no executed criminal has ever reoffended
Explain logically how 1 month of prison followed by a quick hanging or quartering COSTS MORE than decades of food, housing, and treatment.
I don't see how these tiny arguments (opinions) have persuaded you otherwise
They seem funny to me.
They are not facts. All advanced democracies... except many of the States in the US. Are those not advanced democracies?
Recidivism is 100% prevented when convicts are executed, yes. Your 'accounting' for recidivism is a poor counter-argument.
Death row inmates never serve 30 days? Read it again. I'm proposing that they should, not that they currently do.
"Some DP individuals never offended in the first place."
Examples, please.
"Gee, why didn't you think of that, Sherlock?"
Why didn't I think of what? Run-on sentences full of your excuses for a wasteful government? Because I don't make excuses. Your shoe size IQ and all other junior-high style comments you can eat. And so you have.
"This comment coming from you is hilarious. With your idealistic take on worldly affairs, simpleton sentiments like "oh they knew the crime was punishable by death" (hmm, try telling that to one in a psychotic state of desperation who commits wrongdoing so as to continue living, as in murder one to grab a hold of their credit cards, cash, house keys, etc. after undergoing say foreclosure or layoff in which they lose everything. You can't expect one's desperation for survival to incorporate a profound understanding of the law AT that particular moment)"
Oh right. Sorry, I forgot about the people who SHOOT SOMEONE DEAD to get their credit cards, cash, etc. Oh yes, the NECESSARY shooting of someone to take their money. Right! That! I'm not concerned with anyone's regard for the law when they committed their crimes. The only thing that matters is that the law is there, and it states punishment for those crimes. And because of that, these criminals have done this to themselves. Never has a criminal's acknowledgement of a crime's consequences been a requisite for the existence of those consequences.
"You can't expect one's desperation for survival to incorporate a profound understanding of the law AT that particular moment"
Actually, yes, I do. And I'll hold everyone to it.
You have a sheer knack for arguing the irrelevant. Human tendencies and external factors are not excuses for violent crime. We are human beings, not simple animals driven by instinct and rash and stupid decisions. Expecting nothing more from human beings than to travel down the path of least resistance and behave solely on the basis of tendencies or external factors is a fallacy you and the rest of the excuse-making idiots out there have to realize. "He just wasn't thinking" is a piss-poor excuse, and not anywhere near acceptable in my opinion.
Have a look at that eBay sale for yourself.
Thanks for the reply!
When I mentioned catering to... I meant in a general sense when we have a system where someone who can commit this type of crime can be placed in a facility where they get three square meals a day, access to TV, access to education and even university education. I don't want my tax money wasted on someone like that. If life in prison meant 4 walls, no perks and if you want to eat you grow your own food then fine. As of now, yes it might not be pleasant to live in prison but when you have people committing crimes to go to jail because that is a better situation for them, that's a problem. So prison life can be rough. Cry me a river.
I see you mentioned below, people who shoot someone for credit cards. I also have no sympathy for them. They made a *choice* to commit that crime. Many other people in more dire straights than that have not decided to act in an inhuman manner. I see that as a poor excuse and an attempt to avoid responsibility for one's actions.
Don't get me wrong. I am not a fan of the DP. In fact, I think it should be avoided in most cases. However, in cases where there is NO doubt as to the accused person's guilt, I think there are some crimes that are just so heinous that it is warranted. I do think that the inequalities in our system need to be fixed as well. However, I also think the other extreme of things needs to be addressed too. If someone is sentenced to life in prison, then that is exactly what it should mean. None of this "compassionate release" stuff. No perks. No free university education, no TV, etc. 24/7 in a box.
[deleted]
The film was trying to say something, and if you had eyes you would see it. The thing is that even though he was so *beep* up, he ended up being better than the ones that kept hatred inside. He wanted to let go, they couldn't. End of story. Your post proves you're on the hatred side and you could not let go. You could not forgive. We're not even talking about the cases where the murderer didn't let go of his sins but still gets killed, but you don't even have a sympathy and a bit of forgiveness for the one who really changed and also payed the price. It's sad.
shareI dont think it was about feeling sorry for him. Both capital punishments and atrocious crime were shown side by side, and left capital punishment for open discussion.
As for feeling sorry, it was about Ms. Sarandon's character bringing peace, because of her faith, to Penn's soul and also making him feel and say sorry to victim's family, so they may forgive him and get on with their lives.
This whole thread reminds of something Massad Ayoob stated many years ago. Ayoob is one of the world's most renowned and respected firearms and self-defense instructors. He is also a part-time law enforcement officer.
Here is what he said:
I have never arrested a criminal, or interviewed a convict in prison, for whom I could not feel sorry in at least some small way. Broken homes. Molestation in childhood. Poverty. Discrimination. Something twisted in their brain. Something that kept them from being a normal human being.
The key is not allowing your compassion to seduce you into sacrificing yourself or a victim you have the power to protect, in the name of your sympathy for the long-lost child who is now a dangerous adult criminal. Watch the old Disney movie "Old Yeller" as an adult with adult eyes. In the end, when the dog has become rabid, the boy does the right thing by shooting him. The situation has reached the point where further compassion would endanger the innocent.
Yes of course he should be held responsible for his acts. But we shouldn't kill him. We shouldn't kill. If society kills him, we've all killed him and now we're all murderers.
This brutalizes our society, that the authorities are doing this in our name. Yes, this person did a terrible thing... so does that mean we have to do a terrible thing too?
Life in prison without parole is even more terrible; let that be their punishment.
I often want these people to die; but those are my hot emotions in the moment, and I try not to allow myself to go with those raging waters (unlike so many of these people on Death Row). Instead I try to allow the better angels of my nature to be heard and felt in the fullness of time and mind.
Why be ruled by feelings of hate and revenge? There are larger issues at work here, such as living in a society that holds life cheap enough to repeatedly take it away from those we dislike, who had no money, bad lawyers and a lack of personal charm. Especially in Texas.
I don't think the film asks us to feel sorry for Poncelet. The film clearly shows the damage he has done; not only has he destroyed two young people, but their families, and his, as well. I feel that the film is saying that taking a life is wrong, even when done by the criminal justice system. The film also shows that redemption is possible even for a debased human being; by the end of the film Poncelet has accepted responsibility for his actions and become a less hateful person. Should he still pay for what he did? Yes, but execution is not the answer. It demeans our criminal justice system by making it a murderer as well. And, as the film shows, capital punishment is not given fairly. People with money and/or good social or political connections rarely get the death penalty.
share