Dead Man Walking Death Penalty Analysis

Arguments for and against the death penalty are presented from several moral, religious, legal and discriminatory perspectives in the film Dead Man Walking that are further argued in more detail in the novel Capital Punishment on Trial written by David M. Oshinsky. While I am opposed to the death penalty for its historically racist implications, I can understand the desire to use it for extremely horrendous cases.
There were many arguments presented in favor of the death penalty in the film Dead Man Walking, specifically from the victim's lawyer who argued Matthew Poncelet was not a good person for raping a young girl and shooting a boy to death. Hope’s parents advocated for the death penalty and called Matthew’s actions incomparable to animals because animals do not kill and rape their own kind.Therefore, the lawyer declared the death penalty to be the only way to achieve justice for the victims and their families. Furthermore, reporters in the film asked how many others have to die before people come to the realization that the execution of Matthew and such criminals is necessary. Additionally, the murder of the victim Hope was so gruesome …show more content…
He told Sister Helen that it is easy for others to judge the procedure of the death penalty, but that it had solid reasoning. He cited the Old Testament, “thou shalt not kill” and said that “if anyone sheds the blood of man, by shall his blood be shed.” This was his basis for arguing in favor of the death penalty. Sister Helen fires back and references the New Testament in which Jesus talks about grace and reconciliation, but is contradicted by the Priest who argues that since Jesus died for Matthews sins, Matthew needed to accept them and only then would reconciliation. The priest also argues that opinions on the death penalty were irrelevant because authority comes from God only and that those who oppose it, would bring judgement upon