I hope everyone has enjoyed the movie in one way or another. I know it's pretty long and "talky" but it's made this way for a reason. The contemplative mood and slowness of pace invite the audience to think more deeply about the issues that the movie attempts to deal with. The long moments of silence, close-up shots of the key characters, as well as the evocatively unsettling soundtrack (when it makes a rare appearance) are meant to draw us into the movie rather than distance the viewer from the drama of the execution or the trauma experienced by the various parties. I think there was one distinct moment where we felt removed from the action and that was the scene where Sister Helen sat facing Mr Delacroix. The two characters were shot in profile and the camera lens slowly zoomed out, framing both of them in the living room scene. It was a long 2 or 3 second shot of "no action". What effect do you think the director wanted to create or what response is he hoping to elicit from the viewer?
Please post your response to my observations or your comments and reflections to the following questions:
1. Did Matthew Poncelet deserve to die?
2. Was justice served by his execution?
In your post, do consider the perspectives of
a) Poncelet himself, (b) Sister Helen, (c) his family (especially his mother), (d) the victims' families (slight difference in response between the two families), (e) Sister Helen's family and friends, (f) her community, (g) prison guards, warden and doctor, (h) the chaplain, (i) Mr Hilton Barber (his lawyer), (i) the media, (j) politicians, (k), the public (people outside the prison, members of the jury, etc.)
For those who wish to delve a little deeper into the issue of the morality of the death penalty, you may make references to the theories whose links I've provided in the record book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1.
ReplyDeleteI think Matthew Poncelot deserved to be punished because of his heinous crime of raping the girl and killing the boy, but the reasons for killing him seemed more politically motivated. Definitely, his death will not bring back the two from the dead, but as Matthew himself told the girl's family, "I hope my death will be comfort of some kind" or something like that --I am not sure. However, as he also said, "Killing is wrong, whether it is by me, the state or y'all". I agree totally with him. Nobody has the right to play God and take away somebody's else life and yes we should punish him but killing a person is wrong, no matter how guilty he may be. I believe that anything we feel uncomfortable while doing is not morally right, as we have a sense of morality given by God himself, e.g. we feel uncomfortable torturing prisoners for information, or raping somebody, unless we are mad, the devil's spawn or cruel beyond redemption. If the execution team never felt good after killing somebody even though they were "veterans" at it, it shows that killing anybody is wrong. I mean, even the most fiery advocates of Matthew's execution--the two families themselves looked visibly disturbed during his lethal injection.
b)Justice was not served as in short, "Two wrongs do not make a right". His death was more as a form of retribution then rehabilitation.
1.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Matthews do not deserve to die, although he would indeed be staying in the prison for ever. (Ironic based on how I am a supporter of capital punishment.) But due to the fact that I feel for this case it is more complicated than we thought it was, as near the middle of the movie, the lawyer helping Matthews had stated that Matthews 'became' the murderer only because his accomplice had a better lawyer. Thus the main problem became a 'who is the real person who is supposed to die' problem. Even though Matthews may have confessed about him killing the boy and raping the girl, it does not necessarily mean that his accomplice did nothing other than tying them up. Also, it may not even be sure that Matthews really confessed truthfully, because as he had said that he wanted to make the families of the deceased feel better after his death. So it may even be that he is asking for forgiveness both from himself and the families.This no longer justifies Matthews death because the whole incident was not made absolutely clear.
2.
I feel that justice was served depending on the person who is viewing it. For example for Matthews and his family and probably Sister Helen who was trying to help him, justice is definitely not served because they feel that Matthews is being wrongly accused as the accomplice may have played a part in the killing as well, which was not made clear. However, to the families of the victims, justice was indeed served as they feel that the person who was responsible (ignoring the reliability of his responsibility in the first place) for the murder of their children was executed, thus to them he had at least paid for the lives of the victims with his own life.
Before commenting, I would like to indicate that from the start of the movie, we were blinded in believing that Matthew was innocent, he was a by-stander and was high. This is what gained our sympathy for him in the first place. But since we already know he was a true murderer, I shall reserve comments on whether by-standers of a murder should be executed. Considering that he directly murdered a man and raped a woman, there is no doubt that Matthew should be sentenced to death for even retribution required alone far exceeds the sentence he is given. However, I would like to note that it is never fair for the family of the criminal to suffer such an unbearable loss and emotional pain caused by the criminal's sins and it is again the criminal's fault for not repaying his family for their upbringing.
ReplyDeleteFor Sister Helen on the other hand, she struck me as an biased woman by supporting Matthew. Although she has understood the pain and loss of the victims and their parents, she believed that if Matthew were to admit to his sins, he would be at the right. However, if someone so cruel who realize their crimes and acknowledge should not die, then who are those who were the many who innocent in the first place and suffered loss instead?
Some may argue that Matthew should at least have the chance of repenting himself for his sins. However, his crime was murder, how was his change able to in any way benefit or resurrect the dead? What chance of living did they have even when they have done no wrong.
However, I do disagree in capital punishments in view of the perspective of the lawyers, judges and executioners. Although they might be representing the state in concluding the fate of the criminal whether or not he is truly guilty, giving them the responsibility of holding the guilt and emotionality they have, on a personal, individual level, knowing that you have killed someone who did not wrong you is not fair to them.
In response to the movie "Dead Man Walking", I would like to elaborate on what Chan Wei had stated. I do agree that Matt Pocelet deserved the sentence because he broke the law by committing murder and rape. However, the injustice of Matt’s sentence was due to the heavy influence caused by political characters.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the movie, there were a couple of citations of a political character with the phrase “Be tough”, the campaign of pro capital punishment and how the politician urged for the people to toughen up, against the criminals, against the judges who passed off light sentences etc. Hence, much attention was turned towards Matt’s case. From Matt’s interpretation, the politicians needed a white man to execute to show the dire need of capital punishment in the country, making use of Matt to be the first scapegoat and test out their new “more humane” way of execution.
The influence of politics was evident throughout the film especially during the several appeals that Matt filed. One of the most prominent example was when the “private appeal” turned out to be an all out press conference where the politician who was supposedly a reluctant pro-execution was forced to give out politically correct answers to the press and hence turning down Matt’s appeal. In a way, we can see that the political figures behind this are trying every single method to get Matt dead, foiling every single one of his attempts to plead to spare his life.
However one interesting thing to note is that, even after Matt’s execution, the two families did not feel that justice was served. From the scene at the funeral, we saw a confused Mr. Delacroix who claimed to be still filled with hatred but were not sure if he had forgiven Matt. Though a prominent improvement from previous scenes where he wanted Matt dead immediately, it didn’t show that his death brought about forgiveness. The purposeful missing out of scenes of the Percy’s who were seemingly the more extreme family out of the two showed that Matt’s death didn’t bring about much change.
Therefore, I do believe that to certain extents that Matt had to pay for his sins, however despite going by the “A life for a life” rule, the two victim’s families still lived feeling wronged and that justice was served and as Chan Wei mentioned, they wanted him dead for revenge, not for rehabilitation.
@Mrs Yong’s observations
In response to the scene where Sister Helen sat facing Mr. Delacroix, I felt that not only were the audiences included in the 3 seconds of silence, the producer too wanted to show that Helen was being excluded from Mr. Delacroix. This being the first time when she realises that she has been siding with the murderer only. This is also the scene where Mr. Delacroix shares all his emotional ties that he had with his son in the house. Hence I feel that not only were the audiences excluded from his feelings, so was Helen.
Very good comments from Chan Wei, Bryan, Soon Zhou and Fan Yi. I'd like to hear from the rest too. But at this point, I'd like to clarify some points. Some of you mentioned that while Poncelet deserved to die for his crimes, it was unjust that Vitello got away or that the reasons for sentencing Poncelet was politically motivated, and hence justice wasn't served. Could it be that you are confusing the issue here? You need to take a step back and consider the purposes of Poncelet's execution and how those purposes relate to our understanding of justice. As far as Poncelet himself is concerned, he is paying for his "sins", whether he likes it or not is another matter. As far as the Delacroixs and Percys are concerned, the need for revenge or vengeance is met, they have recevied "restitution" in the form of Poncelet's life for the lives of their murdered children. As for matters external to Poncelet's case, which in this case, is Vitello's escape from the same treatment or the political machinations behind the sentencing, or the alleged unfairness of the death penalty (where mostly the poor and blacks are executed), how should these be considered in the discussion of whether justice was served with Poncelet's execution? Are there different levels of "justice" that we need to consider? Finally, if Poncelet were sentenced to life imprisonment instead of given the death penalty, would the same "justice" be achieved?
ReplyDelete1. I agree that Matthew Poncelet deserved to die. He harassed a young couple and even raped the female and murdered the male while he got drunk with his mate. That alone is already a huge crime. No matter what the film portrayed of Poncelet as a “repentant person” looking for redemption, I still do not believe that the criminal was truly sorry for what he did, even though he did admit to the killing of the young chap before he was executed and confessed to raping the young lady. The main reason for this was because he had been denying the crimes he committed even though the friendly Sister Helen tried her best to get him to admit his part in the crime only after he realized that he was not seeing his family ever again.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Poncelet himself was a racist. He constantly referred to the blacks in America as “niggers”, which is a very derogatory term, and had no qualms about wanting to murder all of them. Even supporting Hitler and his campaign in a public press conference, only regretting after a long period of time, he even frightened his spiritual adviser, who I cannot fathom why, stood beside him until death took him. His mother wanted to give a plea to the court to pardon him, but he did not even care about what his mother, one of the few people around him that cared for him while everyone else were calling for his head, had to say, refuting it as “blubbering”. Luckily Sister Helen managed to convince him to “allow” his mother to speak on his behalf.
Another point to note was Poncelet referring to himself as “like Jesus”. How can someone who gives the excuse of being drunk and semiconscious who murdered, or rather slaughtered a younger man and brutally commit incense on a young woman be “like Jesus”? The families of the victims were correct: Poncelet was an “animal”. A crazed, cornered “animal” who lashed out at anybody and did as he saw fit. Such a person is certainly out of his mind. Referring to himself as Jesus is a direct insult to everyone. Jesus helped the world, Poncelet brought murder to it. Furthermore, we must also realize that Poncelet was trying to impress his pal Vitello. After Vitello raped the girl several times (he and Poncelet taking turns), Vitello murdered her in cold blood. Following suit, Poncelet did the same thing to the young guy without giving a single thought. That was the last straw to anyone who still had what little sympathy for him. Thus, we can infer from such examples that Poncelet was a cold blooded, calculative murderer who did not see his actions as wrong at all. Come on, he even blamed Vitello after he joined him to commit their crime together. How wrong is that?
2. Justice was certainly served, and rightly due. Poncelet was definitely a murderer. He's a nasty piece of work too-- an arrogant, trash-talking racist. Most people simply cannot allow a murderer to go free and walking about in society. He must be punished and some even are unhappy with putting murderers on life imprisonment. They want his blood. How can a murderer, who has committed one of the most deadly sins in the world, be allowed to roam free? He must be put out of condition for ever. An executed killer can never commit a murder ever again. On top of that, his death would also comfort the families of the victims because they know that their family has been appeased. Like Poncelet addressed the Delacroix and Percy families in the end, “I hope my death would some comfort to you”, I believe that when the families know that the murderer had already paid for his sins, they would finally be at rest.
ReplyDeleteThere is also Poncelet’s lack of repentance to note. He does not believe that he should be killed for the simple reason that Mr. Percy claimed that he wanted to murder Poncelet himself. However when inquired by Sister Helen what he would do if his brother Troy was killed, Poncelet replied plainly that he would go after the murderer and kill him. There you go, the murderer contradicting himself. Moreover, when he is about to receive the injections, he also proclaimed that “Killing is wrong, whether it is by me, the state, the government or you all”. Desperate attempts by Poncelet as a final plea to have everyone spare his life is all over the entire film, from the press conference all the way to his death bed. If killing is wrong, which it is, why did he even kill in the first place? Does he mean that to kill him is wrong, but to kill the innocent man was right? To me he's lonely and frightened, as Helen discovers when she starts to probe, and ready to do anything to get himself out of his death sentence, even lying profusely about him not being involved in the crime. Thus, Poncelet really deserved the death sentence. He brought it to himself. Justice was served.
by Fangxu
ReplyDelete1. He deserved to die
Reasons:
- hated blacks
- admired hitler
- clear that he would commit crimes again
- death penalty effectively prevents so
Life imprisonment
- does not ensure that criminal would not escape from prison
- similarly, if you have a treasure protected by the most advanced security system, if someone claims that he would take it from you, would you still trust the system fully?
2. Justice was not served
Reasons:
- cannot bring back what is lost
- punishment cannot punish the criminal as much
- e.g. imprisonment of criminal vs death of victim, death of criminal vs permanent mental harm
- matthew does not suffer by dying (no pain)
- those who suffered are the victims, their relatives and matthew's mother
death of matthew might have only served as a form of consolation for the victims relatives, which is the best that the society can do for such a case
1) Poncelet deserves to die.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, we have to take into consideration of the victim's situation. Hope and Walter (the couple) had initially been harassed as they were stopped and forced out of their car, and then they were tortured, eventually killed. One of them was even raped. These 2 people were entirely innocent, so how is it possibly fair to them to lose their lives? How is it fair for their families to suffer emotionally because of their deaths?
Matt Poncelot is just an average guy, so what gives him the right to decide whose lives are to be ended? He definitely has no such authority, and for killing 2 innocent lives, he has to take responsibility for his own actions. In fact, you can't just let someone else take over his place(his mum for instance) to serve the death penalty. He himself deserves to be punished(through the death penalty). This will serve as a form of retribution, pride and assurance to the victim's family.
2) Justice was not entirely served by his execution.
Vitello had escaped and hence was not given any punishment. However Poncelet on the other hand, had to endure and suffer his execution by himself. Also, his death did not manage to bring back the lives of the 2 deceased. he might have been executed, but what changes had that brought to society?
Furthermore, we cannot neglect the feelings of Poncelet's family members. Definitely, they are saddened by his execution, but more importantly, can one imagine how hard life will be for the family after the death of Poncelet? Take the youngest brother for instance. He's only around 12 years old (i think), yet he has to take on the responsibility of taking care of his mother. As Matt Poncelet had told his brother before his execution, he wanted his brother to "take care of MaMA" when he was gone. At just a young age of 12, he has to take on such a heavy burden, moreover, there isn't a father in the home to guide him.
However, justice is served in a way as the Percys and Delacroixs had finally managed to receive the retribution they deserved. The execution of Porcelet had brought assurance for them as now they can be sure that the dangerous man who killed their children is finally dead and hence will not be able harm others again. Also, it has brought pride to their family, as it shows that society respects their children's lives, and will not allow their lives to be stolen without doing anything. In other words, try imagining someone of great importance( for exmp. a Prime minister). What if his son was killed and the murderer got off scott-free? Isn't it disgraceful? Doesn't it make his son seem like a worthless person? However, if the murderer was caught and executed, it does serve as a form of respect for the Prime Minister's daughter, as well as pride for the family.
1. If we think about whether Poncelet deserved to die, we could always look at it at different opinions. There are those who want to gain from his death for personal gain (monetary, power, safety, etc.) such as the media, the politicians and the public, they think that it doesn't matter because it is not them to be sentenced. Those who thought he deserved to die would include the victims' parents and himself, the parents required his death to be at peace because they wanted revenge, Poncelet himself thought that he deserved to die because he felt remorseful so thought that the parents should be appeased. However, i do not think that Helen feels that way because she thinks that as long as one is repentant, one should be given another chance. Of course the mother of Poncelet didn't think he deserve to die too but mothers never want their children to die, they think the best of them. The rest i suppose don't really care.
ReplyDeletePersonally i agree that if one is truly repentant and can never commit the same mistakes again, it doesn't matter if they are given a second chance, but since we can never determine it accurately, i suppose he had to die.
2. Justice was indeed served since the balance was once restored by the execution of Poncelet since the victims' parents were finally appeased.
Matthew Poncelet committed a terrible crime, and by anyone’s point of view, death penalty shall be the best form of punishment. However, several other factors constitutes to whether the death of Matthew shall be justified or not. Matthew knew clearly that murder would eventually lead to his own death, yet he committed it and eventually he has to face the consequences.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, his accomplice, due to the fact that he was much wealthier, was able to afford a better lawyer and made away with a lighter sentence, despite the fact that both of them were responsible of the deaths of the victims. So, is justice served by his execution? Despite America being a state where every human being had equal rights, inequality even in the law would forever exist. An extremely wealthy murderer could easily hire tens of lawyers and detectives to churn out the tiniest bit of evidence to lighten his sentence, or to even prove his innocence, while another poor or black murderer had to quietly face his conviction. Racism and inequality up till this date, still exists in the USA. However, does that mean that Matthew does not deserve death? As the saying goes “Two wrongs does not make one right”, shall both murderers have their sentence lightened, how does that make justice served?
However, from the film one can realize that people only repent only before they knew all is going to be lost, in hopelessness. People only change when all other paths are completely sealed off, and see through the degree of graveness in their mistakes. Such a change can only be realized in capital punishment, in urgency and helplessness. And in the case of Matthew Poncelet, he only sought for forgiveness just before his execution, leaving behind his widowed mother and three brothers. And I do believe that when someone is fully repentant and realizes the severity of his error, until the act befalls me or my family, I believe he should be given a second chance.
I think that Matthew Poncelet deserve to die.He harassed the couple and even raped the girl.What he had done was enought to give him death sentence.Some people may argue that it was unfair to give him death penalty since his accomplice escaped the death penalty by having good lawyers.However,the fact that his accomplice dis not need to die has nothing to do with the fact that Poncelet should be executed.The judgement of Poncelet's accomplice is unfair, as we all know.Thus,we cannot evaluate the correctness of judgement of Poncelet based on the another judgement which was already unfair.Put it to extreme,if Poncelet's accomplice was judged as innocent, does this mean that Poncelet should also be released from prison?Of course not.
ReplyDeleteWas justice served by his execution?I think so.As what he received(capital punishment) was commensurate with what he had done before(raping and killing people)Throughout the movie, some people may feel sympathetic towards Poncelet and even think he himself is also a victim,a victim of an unfair judicial punishment system.However,this is just one side of the whole event,which the movie director hoped to show us.(Since this film was mainly based on Sister Helen and Poncelet)You never understand what the relatives of those victims will feel like when they lose their son or daughter.Compared with these parents,I feel that there is nothing to sympathize on Poncelet.
What Matthew Poncelet had done wrong:
ReplyDeleteRaped Hope Percy
Shot Walter Delacroix
Yes, I believed these actions are sufficient to give him a death sentence, he deserved to die. Indeed, it was unfair that his accomplice Vitello got away with a better lawyer, but this only reflects the flaw in the judicial system involved, it is still undeniable that he is guilty.
However, the fact that he actually repented his actions made me changed my views slightly. I believe that as long as someone is truly willing to change, he/she deserves a second chance. That's why I'm quite disturbed by what group 1 said yesterday, that "we cannot trust ex-convicts", what happened to the Yellow Ribbon Project? For the case of a murderer such as Matthew Poncelet, he still deserves to be punished, but i think it can be lightened to life imprisonment, where he can spent the rest of his life in prison, changed, and maybe helping others to do so too.
On to "was justice served by his execution?". There are a lot of different factors influencing this point. Personally, I don't think it is entirely justifiable. Contrary to what Kaidi thinks, I don't really feel sympathetic to Matthew Poncelet because he is a victim of an unfair judicial punishment system. I find him more of a victim of politics. The only reason why he was executed six years after he was put on death row was die to politics. The people above wants to gain trust from the public. If this is the only reason why he was executed, no, justice is not served.
Some people mentioned that justice is served because the victims' families were finally appeased. I don't think this is valid as after his execution (which we didn't get to watch), Mr Delacroix went to pray for Matthew Poncelet at his grave. I think what he was looking for was just for Matthew Poncelet to realise his mistakes, and for him to willingly take on responsibility. On the other hand, for the Percys, I don't think that they were appeased even when Matthew Poncelet was executed, as shown by their reaction just before the execution itself.
Hanson
I think that given the crimes that Poncelet did, whether or not he was an accomplice or not, he deserved the death penalty. Hence, both Poncelet and Vittero should receive capital punishment, since agreeing to the intention to rape and murder someone already suggests that they would both be capable of committing rape and murder. Considering some of the purposes of punishment such as deterrence and incapacitation, the capital punishment is the only choice for people who possess the adrenaline to rape and murder someone, such as Vittero and Poncelet. On this note, I wish to comment that insufficient justice was served by Poncelet's execution since part of the punishment for Vittero's crimes were suffered by Poncelet.
ReplyDeleteAlthough his execution was valid, the method in which the execution was decided is to be condemned. The politicians had decided his execution to show that they were supportive of capital punishment in order to gain the support of voters. This is highly immoral as the politicians are toying with one's life to serve their own purposes, which was to win the election. What if the politicians were in the mercy another person? The degree of suffering, helplessness and derogation is unbearable. In this film, such feelings were exactly what Poncelet was having. To the bare minimum, suffering and derogation was incommensurate to Poncelet's crimes. The couple was killed in a shot, thus they did not had any suffering at all; neither did the dead couple suffer derogation. Hence, Poncelet should not suffer what he has not done, in the name of retribution.
In his family's point of view, executing Poncelet did not serve any form of justice. Imagine a mother losing her child which she brought up from young. Watching her child perish under the wrath of justice does not serve any justice to her (how contradictory this seems). Though by executing Poncelet, everything is restored to equillibrium for the victim's family, Poncelet's family suffer the final loss. This effectively means that Poncelet's family was paying justice for the loss of the victim's family, which is unfair since Poncelet's family committed no crime. This utterly contradicts with the principle of justice.
I believe that Matthew Poncelet deserved the death penalty. Looking at the crimes he did, it is quite obvious that he has fit himself into the shoe of a dying man. Yet, it is not only him who deserves the punishment, but also his accomplice. In the show, sympathy for Poncelet was drawn by doubting the fairness of judgement in court, where his accomplice Vittero escaped the same penalty by having a better lawyer. Even so, it does not contribute to whether he deserves the punishment or not, but rather the accuracy of the judge. In most of the character's eyes, Poncelet is truly one who deserves to be killed for his sins, other than Helen who is made the main character for the purpose of sympathy which has to be made strong to oppose the obvious fact that the death penalty was fair.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, while trying to draw sympathy from the audience, the director made many good attempts such as slow, moody scenes and portrayal of the emotional sides of Poncelet as well as the unfair side of the judgements due to political and other reasons.
Yet, justice is not served. Look at the Delacroix's family. Their family line would end there, but Poncelet's family line would not. The harm caused to the entire family is much greater than his life can pay. He has taken two lives (with the help of Vittero) and only one life is taken. For this, no punishment can bear the compensation, and the only way for him to repay the society in kind is to be a case for deterrence for murder and rape, and for that I believe that a harsh punishment was justified, even though the movie made things sound unfair with the addition of politics (the politician said to go harsh on judges that pass light sentences). To repent is too late, for if the judges give light sentences to those who "repent", then anyone can just claim to have repented, just like boys saying "I am below 16, I will not go to jail, only the boy's home". Therefore, even though the justice was not served since the compensation did not match the pain that Poncelet caused, the punishment was already the harshest possible, so the punishment is justified.
I think matthew definitely deserved to die. At the start of the movie, he gave us the impression that he was a innocent by stander, forced to do things as vitello ordered. This display of false innocence was shown through his actions throughout most of the film until the day when he was going to be executed.
ReplyDeleteMany of us would have been lead to believe that he is innocent due to his insistence. There were also many external factors such as the unfair verdict of the judges at the court due to political reasons which should not interfere with the hearing.
However despite all this, matthew poncelet has after all murdered or acquainted in the murder of 2 teenagers. Hence he must be served the death penalty for if he is released justice as many deem, would not have been served. The victim's families would not be able to move on with life if the muderer of their child isn't justly punished.
Many would oppose me, saying that taking another's life because he has taken one is not the right way to serve justice and it is denying his human rights. However i would like to pose this question to you guys. Would life imprisonment make the victim's family satisfied? Furthermore we must take into account that this took place in an american context where "an eye for an eye" is widely accepted and enforced. the victim's families would most probably settle for nothing less then the death penalty.
I can say that justice is done only on the surface. Poncelet paid for his crimes by getting executed. However this doesn't change anything. the two teenagers are dead. this will remain as reality. No form of punishment can bring back the dead or reverse time. Hence i think justice is not served wholey.
1. There is no question that Matthew Poncelet definitely deserved to die after what he did to the two teenagers. However, as he himself mentioned, he thinks that all killing is wrong, no matter by him or the state. Although the death sentence is appropriate, the way that the state has the right to keep Poncelet away for 6 years and only execute him to prove something for political reasons should not be the way of carrying out the execution. To do so would be nothing different as to toy with Poncelet's life as Poncelet did to the two teenagers. To give Poncelet a lifeline and a second chance would be impossible as even participants of the Yellow Ribbon Project are not convicts which have raped, tortured and murdered totally innocent people with no motive at all. Therefore, Matthew Poncelet deserves to pay for what he has done, and to make him truly repentant for his behaviour, as can be seen from just before the injection was given, where he breaks down and tells the truth the Sister Helen.
ReplyDelete2. Justice was served, but only partially. Matthew Poncelet was sentenced to death which is just after his killing of Walter Delacroix and raping of Hope Percy. However. we must note that according to the theory of "An eye for an eye", justice was not entirely served as Poncelet could not have been raped himself then shot dead, which would qualify as equal punishment.
Furthermore, the death of Poncelet cannot make the two teenagers come back, much less can it give solace to the teenagers' parents. Although we did not get to see it, I am sure that the Delacroixs and the Percys were much perturbed by the fact that not only was their childrens' murderer about to be killed, it was about to happen in front of their eyes. I would think that what those parents were have wanted was for Poncelet to realise his errors and perhaps do some good for society or save a life in the future. They would not have wanted another life taken in front of their eyes which would not have brought back their children, and would only have served as a form of punishment for an irrational act.
1) After watching Dead Man Walking, I now take a stand against capital punishment. I feel Matthew Poncelet, as cruel and brutal as he might be, should not deserve to die. Capital punishment has always been seen as a form of retribution to the murderer and deterrence to the society. However, killing Matthew Poncelet brings none back to life and in fact the mere decision of executing him reflects poorly on our disposition too. As quoted in the bible, “Thou shall not kill”. As much as we want the murderer to pay for his sins, no one commands the supremacy to take away anyone else’s life. It seems as though the only reason for ‘executers’ to make the cohesive decision is to satisfy their personal malicious urges. As seen in the movie, the emotionally stirred parents wanted the execution badly just because they sought after vengeance. It is human nature to feel a need for reprisal against a villain, but by taking away his life to fulfill our sadistic impulses, are we stooping to his level and consequently becoming a villain ourselves too?
ReplyDelete2) Hence, justice was not served. Justice is a concept of moral righteousness based on equality, religion and other fundamental virtues in our society. Although Matthew Poncelet carried out atrocious acts to the couple, based on the concept of justice, everyone including Matthew have equal rights. While he did commit appalling crimes, that does not render him ‘rightless’ nor does it confer us with more rights to take away his life. I agree totally for a need for deterrence, but non-capital punishment would serve similar purpose without inflicting morality.