About book Dead Man Walking: The Eyewitness Account Of The Death Penalty That Sparked A National Debate (1994)
This is the story of a serial killer who enslaves people, usually black men, and tortures them by telling them the date the killer plans to execute them and then by keeping them locked in chains until that date, always reminding them of the date’s imminence. Sometimes, the killer tells them that if they are lucky, if the killer likes them enough, they might escape death, but that just seems to increase the torture because the killer doesn’t really plan to let them go. The killer in this book also has a kind of Dexter complex, where the killer chooses victims morally corrupt enough that few people even notice their deaths. Of course, the killer in this book is state government.This is actually one of the saddest books I’ve ever read. It’s hard to feel very sympathetic towards the prisoners that Sister Helen advocates for, and I have to be honest that I don’t share her confidence that a true life sentence will always be a true life sentence, or even that a true life sentence is more humane than the death penalty. On the other hand, I am completely convinced of the arbitrariness of state executions. Also, it was deeply tragic to read about the families of the executed men, and their devastation seems to deserve respect, just as does the devastation of the families of the executed men’s victims. This year, I sat in the courtroom and watched parts of the trial of Angela McAnulty, who tortured her daughter to death over the course of about seven years. At the point that her daughter, Jeanette Maples, died, the coroner couldn’t name a cause of death because there were so many possible causes. She had numerous infected wounds, brain hemorrhaging, water in her lungs, and was severely emaciated. Angela had forced (forced? convinced?) her husband to install locks, to which only Angela had the keys, on most of the doors in the house, including the bathroom. Her daughter was only allowed to use the bathroom supervised because she would try to drink out of the toilet if she was unsupervised. There were other things, worse things. There were other kids who weren’t tortured, but who Angela involved in torturing Jeanette. The jury gave her the death penalty, and I have to say I would have done the same. In her police interrogation tape, she said that instead of torturing her daughter, she probably should have taken up smoking.So, I feel pretty conflicted about the issue of the death penalty. I think Sister Helen Prejean is a lovely woman, and I think her compassion is truly noble. I’m not wholly convinced that the death penalty is the worst of American institutions, though. Buuuuuut, at the same time, the corruption that the death penalty seems to practically breed is truly disturbing. The fact that it is only used against the poor is equally troubling. Although Angela McAnulty confessed to her crimes, and so no trial occurred as to her guilt (the only issue was sentencing), it was still a problem to me that her defense attorneys put on almost no case. Their closing argument was something like, “Yep, this is pretty much the worst thing ever. You’re a smart jury, and we’re reconciled to whatever you decide.” I’m not satisfied that that is actually a defense. I know the burden is on the state to prove a crime, but that doesn’t mean that no defense is necessary. According to Sister Helen, failure of the defense to actually provide a defense is a rampant problem.I keep coming back to thinking about this issue in relation to the recent Supreme Court case Connick v. Thompson. That case is fascinating. Like, I want to investigate it and write a book about all of the people involved in it. It is, like, EVERYTHING interesting about the law. But, the thing about it is that I feel with great certainty that Justice Thomas’ opinion is correct (Slate does not agree). I think Justice Ginsburg’s dissent would have created really troubling law. So the reason it relates to Dead Man Walking is that they are both about the death penalty in Louisiana and how corrupt the prosecution of criminals who end up on death row is. They are both about how legal procedure is basically what decides who wins and loses. Since I totally love legal procedure for some insane reason, I kind of love that fact, but not when people unjustly die because of it.One awesome thing about the Thompson case is that Harry Connick, Jr.’s dad, Harry Connick, Sr., who was the lead D.A. in New Orleans for a helluva long time (Wikipedia says 1973-2003), is the “Connick” in the title of the case. Anyway, the issue in Connick v. Thompson was that Mr. Thompson was convicted of a crime and sentenced to the death penalty because the New Orleans prosecutors withheld evidence of a lab test that exonerated him. So, the lab tests get discovered, new trial, Mr. Thompson gets not only gets no death penalty in the new trial, he also gets completely acquitted of the crime. The withholding of evidence is a violation of the case Brady v. Maryland, which says prosecutors can’t withhold exonerating evidence. Then, this is the interesting part (to me). You probably all know this, but I didn’t before law school. The statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the civil rights statute that says that we can sue people who “under color of” state law deprive us of our rights. So, the Supreme Court says that “people” can mean a lot of things. One of the things it can mean is municipal authorities in their personal capacities. (Like, as themselves, not as their office. So, when Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska, I would sue her as Sarah Palin, not as governor.) It can also mean municipalities themselves, but if you sue a municipality, you have to show that there is some procedure or custom, instituted by the municipality, that supported the deprivation of your rights. Some rule to change. This is the same with suing someone in their official capacity, like suing Mr. Connick as D.A. of New Orleans, or suing Governor Sarah Palin.In Thompson, Mr. Connick, Sr., came out and said basically, “Yes, yes, unfortunately I misread Brady when I was the lead prosecutor.” *this is me going ballistic* So, he misread Brady to mean that he was supposed to withhold evidence? No. I am not willing to believe that happened. But, the genius thing about this is that then the attorneys bringing Thompson’s case sued the municipality, or Mr. Connick in his official capacity, not the prosecutors in their personal capacities. They argued that Mr. Thompson’s case alone, one instance of withholding evidence, combined with Mr. Connick’s statement that it was a mistake on his part, showed a custom of the municipality. And Justice Thomas was like, “No, one instance doesn’t show a custom or a procedure or a rule that we can attribute to the municipality.”People tend not to sue officials in their personal capacity because individuals have less money, less insurance, than municipalities. The interesting thing if you take the Thompson case with Dead Man Walking is that Prejean is pretty clear that she thinks that this kind of thing went on all the time in the New Orleans Parish. Even the Slate article above notes that Louisiana courts have overturned, for Brady violations, many convictions coming out of Connick’s office. Correct me if I’m wrong (and I honestly haven’t read the opinion very closely because I have to actually do my schoolwork at some point), but it’s my understanding that the Supreme Court only considered the violations in relation to Thompson (and it would seem that way, too, because Thompson is the only plaintiff here). So interesting that, at least as it appears from reading the facts in the opinion, the attorneys didn’t bring suit using the other cases as well, even as evidence. All of the courts, even the lower courts that awarded judgment to Mr. Thompson, agreed that it was not custom or procedure to withhold evidence. Anyway, that’s me geeking out on federal courts. I’m sure I haven’t explained the whole situation that well. And it does make sense to gamble by suing Connick in his official capacity, hoping for a judgment on which Mr. Thompson could actually collect, than to sue in his personal capacity. I just wonder about the lack of evidence. I wonder about the statements that Sister Helen makes in this book, which pretty blatantly imply that Mr. Connick’s office has been consistently guilty of § 1983 violations. Okay, none of this is actually related to the paper I have to write on judicial review and the death penalty, so I need to go work on that now. It’s all just been rattling around in my head, so I felt like I needed to put it to paper. If you’ve made it this far, congratulations! Do you want to write my federal courts paper for me, too?
As I read more of this book, I draw more into and even step into the life of a criminal being executed. How cruel the government would be to just kill a man with nothing good coming from it. They believe that executing the bad will make a better world. But no, what did it bring? A constant pain, agony, and more and more bad people seeking revenge for the dead. We should be lucky enough that nuns from a Catholic church comes and helps and even comfort the criminals while the day goes by from execution. They not only help the criminals, but they also try their best to prevent from executing the criminals. Yes criminals should be punished for what they did, but what does it bring for you? Nothing but revenge. I would understand if I had a close one of mine killed, I'd seek revenge as well, but is it easier to rather kill the criminal who kills? or forgive them? Choose, because what I see in our government today is what they are not. I thought they bring about peace in a peaceful matter.. But then again, I understand the World isn't perfect. This book for me has been an inspiration to me, as each book always is..I'm about half way into the book now, and I'm actually starting to get a little bored, no lie.. I know most of what I'm reading because it's the same crime that happens here in Alameda or at anywhere in the world. What I learn about this book, on the other hand, is the laws and things about executing someone, and how the government reacts to such criminals. The key point I see in this book actually, is the fact of how the government treats these human beings as animals. Animals that must be killed because of their wraths, their killing spree, their lives being meaningless, and that to solve this, they kill them without regrets and hesitation. There isn't much to say about the book so far..As I predicted..I got bored once again, but trying to not get bored because this book has a lot of good tips about the law and the executions. The more I read, the more I get bored, but yet I keep on reading...Funny how the more bored I get the more I read right? Well now that I got back into reading this book thoroughly..I wonder. Do we have spiritual advisers for the criminals in prisons? I hope we do because Sister Helen Prejean is doing a great job at helping the criminals forgive not only what he has done, but also himself. I admire Sister Helen because. although she's obligated to be a spiritual adviser to anyone after her 1st criminal. She still goes out to help and pray for them and endure the pain of both pros and cons of the crimes and their victims. There are a lot of quotes I like in this book, but here's one of them. "A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and lamenting: Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted because they were no more."
Do You like book Dead Man Walking: The Eyewitness Account Of The Death Penalty That Sparked A National Debate (1994)?
Wow. "Work of the eyes is done, now go do the heart work" (p309, from Rainer Maria Rilke)Sister Helen Prejean must be one of the bravest people in the world. Not only does she support men convicted of murder on death row, and be with them in hyper final hours, and be with them in the death chamber itself, but she makes time for the victims, attends and raises money for victim support groups and does all this in the name of Jesus, bringing hope and comfort, steel and velvet, challenge and compassion.I'm in awe. I thought the book was going to be challenging, but not like this: people, dates, times, corruption of legal process, withholding evidence, common brutality to the families of both those convicted and those victimised. And well researched, humane and thoughtful too. She does not shirk from hard questions, nor does she go for pro hominem arguments. She tells of one family who, after the man who murdered their daughter is executed, lose their focus: p188 'with Robert Willie dead, he doesn't have an object for his rage'. Isn't that the saddest sentence in the whole book?Compare with p312-3: " Lloyd...went to the execution....not for revenge, but hoping for an apology. Patrick....had not disappointed him...'....I want to ask for you forgiveness...' and Lloyd had nodded his head, signalling a forgiveness he had already given.... But he acknowledges that it's a struggle...as he remembers David's birthday year by year and loses him all over again... Forgiveness is never going to be easy. Each day it must be prayed for and struggled for and won."Questions of justice, revenge, 'paying for crime', punishment, acknowledgement, restitution, acceptance, restoration all come up here. Whilst society perhaps still needs to come up with a way of adequately dealing with people who commit terrible crimes it is clear that the death penalty is not that way.
—Graham
Cody G.Leighton W.Joseph C.Isaiah S.Dead Man Walking: Book Reviewt tDead Man Walking by Sister Helen Prejean was a very interesting book. Sister Helen was a nun who was going to work inmates on death row as a spiritual advisor. This inmate's name is Patrick Sonnier, a convicted killer of two teens and commonly rape teens with his brother’s aid. Throughout the book Sister Helen builds a relationship with Patrick, or Pat as she called him, and she explains the story in Dead Man Walking. After the events of Dead Man Walking, Sister Helen became anti-capital punishment activities and tries to convince the reader that capital punishment is wrong as well.I enjoyed how Sister Helen Prejean wasn’t completely biased for herself, she thoroughly explained how Patrick Sonnier felt toward what he did and his punishment. I didn't like how she made Patrick look like a good person. Patrick did kill two people and raped the girl. tI would personally give the story 3.5-4 stars out of 5. Dead Man Walking is a very good book and tells a true and terrible story, but can drag on at some points, especially in the beginning when Sister Helen explains her opinion about capital punishment and explains the setting. tI would recommend this book to all but young children. It is a great book that may be a slower read, but it takes the reader on a spiritual journey. It makes the reader question their beliefs and wonder what is truly right and wrong. It does have some graphic scenes when describing the events of the murders and other crimes Pat committed, and the theme of the story about forgiveness and capital punishment would be hard to explain to younger children. tIf the reader liked the story, I would recommend the movie Dead Man Walking. The movie is the same story, but the characters names are different names. Sister Helen Prejean is played by Susan Sarandon and Matthew Poncelet (a.k.a. Patrick Sonnier) is played by Sean Penn. The movie is extremely emotional and takes you on the same journey as the book. There are a few differences, like the way the crime was committed, some character names, and who was involved. The movie won an Oscar and Susan Sarandon won best actress for her role as Sister Helen and Sean Penn won best actor for his role as Matthew.
—Kanyekanye
Dead Man Walking by Sister Helen Prejean is a nonfiction novel that portrays the cruelty of the death penalty through two inmates she befriended. The main focus of the story is Pat Sonnier who, with his brother, was convicted of the murder and rape of two teenagers. After a rocky court case, Pat was given the death penalty, and his brother Eddy was given life in prison, although he did not kill the kids himself. Throughout the book, Prejean worked to fight the death penalty for Pat, and all of the other inmates on death row.I would rate this book a 5 out of 5 due to its intriguing plot line, and controversy. It is evident that the death penalty has many differing opinions on whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional. Prejean takes a side and supports it to the fullest of her ability, no matter what the consequences may be, or what people say or think of her. She perfectly illustrates the imperfections of the death penalty while creating a story that you can truly sink into. Once you get going, it is extremely hard to put down.
—Kacey Koch
