The film Dead Man Walking presents a complex view of the death penalty, as the filmmakers avoid oversimplifying the issue or pontificating a particular point of view. Sister Helen (Susan Sarandon) is called upon to work with a man on death row: Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn). Poncelet is presented as a thoroughly distasteful human being, one that the audience can scarce sympathize with at first. Yet as his immanent death approaches, Poncelet does change, however meaningless and futile that small change may be. His initial deceit fades into a frank recognition of his crime, and the audience is left to wonder if facing his mortality is really what triggered these psychological changes or whether he might have underwent a spiritual transformation while serving out a life sentence. Knowing what the audience does about Poncelet, it is doubtful that as an inmate he would have reckoned with the truth of his crimes, had he not been forced to face his own demise. It is likely that Poncelet would not have called upon the services of Sister Helen either, if he were not sitting on death row. Serving out a life term instead, Poncelet might have become even more entrenched in his white supremacist subculture, fomenting the hatred and bitterness that he too inherited from others. From this vantage point, it seems that the death penalty might indeed serve some function in stimulating remorse in those who would otherwise be incapable of moving beyond their warped sense of reality, and for preventing the taxpayer for funding the daily lives of the likes of Poncelet.

In Poncelet’s case, there is no question of his guilt; it is not as if he is an innocent man. Also, there is questionable value in what the death penalty offers to victims and their families. Taking Poncelet’s life allows the victims to feel like they are taking back their power from the criminal, even though the only real power would be in the act of forgiveness.
Dead Man Walking is successful because it frankly addresses the death penalty question as if each case were tightly determined on the basis of DNA evidence—which of course in reality it is not and many innocent individuals are sentenced to death in the United States. Also, because the family members of the victims do not seem to receive the level of satisfaction they expect from the execution, ultimately the film shows that the death penalty serves no overarching function except for a temporary sense of vindication. Therefore, the position taken by the film is summarily balanced and thought provoking.

I do not generally “believe” in the death penalty for several reasons, many of which are expressed in the film. For one, I do not believe that the criminal justice system is capable of convicting the truly culpable with sufficient certainty. I would rather a hundred guilty persons serve a life sentence than have one innocent person be sentenced to death wrongfully.…