MovieChat Forums > At the Death House Door (2008) Discussion > I'm not convinced De Luna is innocent

I'm not convinced De Luna is innocent

posted 15 years ago by quiet451
4 replies | jump to latest

This movie tries to put Carlos De Luna up as the #1 example against the death penalty, but it does a poor job of proving his innocence. They have a knife that is a very common folding hunting knife and second hand stories of Carlos Gonzales confessing to the crime. They also have the testimony of the Reverand, the sister and the female reporter. Where is the hard tangible evidence against the real killer? Where was he? Why wasn't he hiding under a truck half naked?

I've always been against the death penalty, but this movie did a poor job with the Carlos De Luna case IMO. Sorry Reverand. Just because you were "sure he was innocent" doesn't really convince me.

[–] SinisterGrin 15 years ago

I understand what you're saying and I get your point, but for me, just the fact that there WERE doubts about him actually doing the crime is enough to not administer capital punishment. If we're going to use capital punishment, we must be 100% sure, with NO doubts, that the inmate is guilty. If we don't, then the judicial system is just as bad as the murderers.

All in all, it's a case I'd love to do more research on.

And I'm for capital punishment in certain cases. Funny how the lines blur on a documentary like this.

[–] mysticzine 15 years ago

I am so happy to read "All in all, it's a case I'd love to do more research on." I believe the power of a documentary is NOT to provide all of the answers. I believe documentaries are made to ask questions, and to kick around the evidence. I believe their main goal should be to start a dialog and get the viewer to investigate the issue for his or herself.

All documentaries are biased and are presented in an artistic fashion. They make sacrifices in facts, sometimes, to keep a story flowing. The best documentaries, to me, are ones that provide you with the starting point to do your own research.

This film does not present all the facts to us; nor do I believe that is its purpose. The film's main point is to show the personal effects of the death penalty from a particular point of view. De Luna's case, I believe, is introduced in order to show how a thread of doubt can lead to a life changing belief.

In that respect, I believe the film is very successful.

[–] BKinzeys 14 years ago

The purpose of a trial is to prove one is guilty, not innocence.

He could have done it but the documentary shows it's more likely someone else did.

Remember there were no fingerprints of Carlos at the scene. No blood on Carlos from a stabbing that occurred 40 minutes earlier. Then there is a very similar looking guy, who was known to carry that type of knife, who had told others he had committed the crime.

Where is the tangible evidence against Carlos De Luna? What they have is victim identification. Was he the only suspect presented to her? If the other guy had been apprehended at the scene as well would the victim have identified him?

This documentary's primary purpose wasn't to prove Carlos was innocent. To cast grave doubt of Carlos's guilt was secondary. It did that.

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

That's it exactly -- but unfortunately, after trial, the standard moves past reasonable doubt, which is why it's so important to get it right in the first place.