What moments of transformation do you see in this book? More importantly, were there any moments that transformed your thinking on these ethical issues?
What moments of transformation do you see in this book? More importantly, were there any moments that transformed your thinking on these ethical issues?
To start us off: one of the more obvious “moments of transformation” in The Death of Innocents is the revision of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae in 1997–and hence the end of Catholic endorsement of the death penalty. My mother is an associate professor at a Catholic seminary (coincidentally she took the job in 1997) and when I told her that the Vatican once supported the death penalty, she replied that judging from the adamant opinions of her students, one wouldn’t know it. Perhaps it is because The Death of Innocents is filled with more arguments condemning rather than praising the death penalty, but personally I am most intrigued by the “long tradition of Catholic support for the death penalty,” and the myriad of religious/ethical arguments used to support it (many of which are now considered archaic). I’ve documented a few:
Biblical Support
-Romans 13 (quoted by Justice Scalia): government derives its moral authority from God, hence government is God’s minister, a revenger to “execute wrath upon him that doth evil”
-Genesis 9:6: “the man who sheds blood will have his own blood shed”
-Exodus 21:25: “an eye for an eye”
Saintly Support
St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430):
-legitimized violence by saying the wicked might be “coerced by the sword”
-believed the death penalty was a form of charity: “inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing it from the harm they might suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on.” (DA Harry Connick Sr. rationalized that the death penalty could have the salutary effect of giving murderers time to repent and could potentially save their souls from Hell)
St. Thomas Acquinas (1225-1274):
-affirmed in Summa Contra Gentius that governments derive their power from God, and hence “civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the state” (similar to Romans 13)
-argued that the Fifth Commandment (Augustinian version: “Thou shalt not kill”) did not contradict the death penalty, for an exception is made when death is a form of self defense for the society
-argued that the killing of “evildoers” was lawful when “directed to the welfare of the whole community”
-argued that when a lawful authority kills an evil person, Christ’s command to love is not broken: “although it be in evil itself to kill a man who preserves his human dignity, nevertheless to kill a man who is a sinner can be good, just as it can be good to kill a beast”
-argued that “love your neighbor” did not negate the death penalty, for “pestiferous” criminals could hardly be considered neighbors
Most of these arguments are notable purely for history and logic’s sake, but there is one element they all lack, and that is compassion. Sister Prejean has much to say on the topic of compassion, particularly how the European criminal justice system (unlike our own system) has evolved to temper punishment with compassion. It’s true that the American criminal justice system is still young in comparison, (as were the justice systems of Augustine and Acquinas when they made their pro-death penalty arguments,) so perhaps this is our next challenge: to feel awareness of and empathy for the criminals caught in our justice system. This I believe is more challenging than to amputate them from our society.
I think you’re right Jasmine about the transformation in the pope’s reform not ensuring a reform for all Catholics. Very conservative Catholics like Justice Scalia won’t take into account modern day revisions, which in my opinion is very close minded, not to consider change.
A big transformation that I noticed in the book was in Sister Helen when she moved into the ghetto of New Orleans to live among the poor, and started actively getting involved in helping the poor instead of praying that God would help them. I thought that was really brave of her.
I opposed the death penalty before I read this book, simply because I find it hypocritical to say, “You killed someone, that was really wrong, so now I am going to kill you.” But after reading this book, I have even more reasons to oppose the death penalty, such as the examples of innocence she gave, life without parole, corrupt prosecutors, jokes of defense attorneys, withholding evidence, percent of murderers who even get killed (less than 2%), the list goes on…. But a moment that transformed my thinking even more was the concrete evidence that these two men did not get a fair trial at all, and it really opened my eyes to the inconsistencies in our justice system–showed/taught me not to assume that everyone in prison deserves to be there, is guilty (like shawshank redemption, but that was fiction, this has a little more credibility)
(Shawshank Redemption…good movie!)
Both of those moments were definitely big transformations. I think the one that struck me most, though, was that of Lori Urs. Before she got involved with Joseph O’Dell’s case, she was fairly ignorant to the ways of the justice system. I was aware that I knew very little about capital punishment, but I wasn’t quite aware HOW little. As Prejean put it, “Our innocence has been betrayed.” We except that the courts will provide justice, that if you’re innocent, cool, you’re good…but that is only our innocence talking, apparently. Lori held on to her innocence for a long time, filing petitions up until the day of Joe’s execution, and Joe said a couple times that he wished to protect her innocence. I don’t think she realized until after he was dead that yeah, the state was going to kill him. She seems to be a good representation of the general public’s (ill-informed) perception of the justice system.
And, like you said, Suzanna, Prejean does talk about her own transformation from WASPy, privileged, Catholic school girl to a nun living in poverty-stricken Louisiana…I liked the way she put it on page 219: “Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld racial segregation for many years in the South, played a part in the way that I, a little white girl, could sit at the front of the bus, laughing and talking with my white firends, without a twinge of conscience or concern about the black people forced to sit in the back of the bus. Good laws encourage people to be respectful of one another. Bad laws encourage meanness and cruelty, even to the point of making it acceptable to kill ‘undesireables’ among us.” I dunno, I just liked that passage!
Honestly, before my senior year of high school I was completely ignorant to the way that our government here in the United States and other governments around the world function. Growing up in an extremely liberal small town in Oregon I wasn’t completely naive to the fact that some people didn’t agree with some actions of government, but still, in my childhood I was led to believe by teachers and peers that the United States government was “the best in the world” and I therefore believed that our government must be perfect. However, in my senior year of high school during my government class, I was handed the truth about just how crazy our government can be. To begin with, our government was founded by a bunch of rich, white property owners. Well, this scenario already brings up two big issues that our government still struggles with today – race issues as well as poverty and economic issues – a clear beginning to the court battles and legal malfunctions that have continued to go on since day one.
When I began reading Sister Helen Prejean’s story this summer I had a very small knowledge base on the death penalty. Yes, I knew that it had happened before and that there was controversy existing over the subject, but I was completely unaware of how big the controversy really is. While reading through the stories of Dobie Gillis Williams and Joseph O’Dell, I found myself struggling to accept that any decent judge and courtroom as a whole could be so blind to the truth. I found myself realizing that like many other portions of the American government, the legal system is flawed in its proceedings. When Lori Urs came into the picture of the story I gained hope, thinking that she was exactly the type of passionate person that these situations call for. Throughout Joe O’Dell’s entire chapter I continued to gain hope for him and for other men on death row, especially when Pope John Paul II changed the words in the Catholic Catechism from “not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty” to “Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.” Like Sister Helen, I believed this to be a HUGE step forward against the death penalty, and in the long run I do believe that this moment will be a defining time for the fight against capital punishment.
When Joe was killed despite all of the evidence for new cases and victims, I was extremely upset. I felt as though the people who were screaming the truth and working so hard to stop this one death, hoping for a domino effect, were silenced by complete injustice. No innocent person deserves to die. I strongly believe that the death penalty is a legit piece of our government, but if the system is flawed than something needs to be done to stop the punishment of those who don’t deserve a sentence at all. I believe that with every capital punishment case there should be multiple courts that hear the case, and that every piece of evidence that could possibly be used against either side should be considered immediately. I also believe that laws, in cases of capital punishment only, against evidence being presented after the prosecution gives their argument should be lifted and the courts should hear about every new piece of evidence found. By leaving out evidence, no matter how small it might be, our government is making the decision to become blind to the entire picture. These cases are life and death (obviously) and no life should be taken with such little consideration to what the entire picture might hold. Sister Helen’s story is an enlightening work of passion and fact that opened my eyes to the truth of our government’s legal system. My thoughts have transformed throughout the book, and my personal opinion of the subject has become more defined with facts supporting my reasoning. I am extremely excited to see Sister Helen Prejean when she visits the University of Oregon this year, and can’t wait to hear her thoughts when she is questioned by so many students with, I’m sure, different opinions on the topic. I hope to be continually impressed by her efforts to save the lives of innocents.
I’m surprised that this question has so few answers, considering how many times Sister Helen mentions the dramatic transformation meeting men like Dobie and Joe had in her. It’s not often that the subject of a novel can be accredited with having THIS dire of an effect on a person’s life, both in spiritual and political perceptions.
This may be a little out of left field, but the “moment of transformation” I saw in the book wasn’t a part of the narrative itself so much as Sister Helen Prejean’s growing anger as the story progressed. That sort of ‘righteous fury’ is familiar to anyone who’s read Matthew 21 [Jesus’s rage in the temple]; additionally, Sister Prejean cites this scene which is a clear parallel to her own outrage. I have only been to a Catholic mass once in my life and I am not acquainted with any nuns though my mom was raised Catholic. However, the image of a nun with anything but perfect poise made me stop and think. Many priests and nuns are activities [obvious example: Mother Teresa], but I have never imagined any of them breaking composure with ANGER.
The author wrote The Death of Innocents to outrage. Her goal is no different than a graffiti artist or a politically outspoken blogger. What sets her belligerent response apart as ‘righteous’, or rather, in the right, isn’t any one factor. In fact, I look forward to hearing her speak and I will be carefully considering why idealists like Sister Helen are a step above other activists like Banksy and Ai Weiwei, aside from her obvious lifestyle choice. The death penalty is a topic that I have not explored before this reading, as I have always been more than a little bit of a utilitarian (more lives > a life). Well done, summer reading. You’ve made me curious.
activists*******
Like everyone else, I believe that all these transformations that have been mentioned previous are impressive. They show us that nearly anyone can change. One can go from a firm believer/supporter of the death penalty to one completely against the capital punishment. However these transformations can be seen in more minor “characters” of the book too.
Now I’m not too sure about the names because I read the book a while back but at a moment in the book (I think it’s in the Machinery of Death part) Sister Helen Prejean mentions the “transformation” (well it’s more of a realization I guess) of Justice Harry Blackmun. He always thought that the death penalty was compatible with the American constitution but he ended up realizing that it was not. Justice Blackmun (I’m really not sure if its him -_- It’s somewhere in the book though!) ultimately realized that the capital punishment is unconstitutional and for years he wanted to believe otherwise. Through experience and questioning, he managed to realize that the capital punishment was unconstitutional and not aligned with the American constitution. I guess it’s not a big transformation because he was always skeptical about it but through time and research he arrives to the same conclusion as Lori Urs (as Maddie was saying). I’m not saying that he was “ignorant” to the ways of the justice system but I guess he got a clearer view of how the judicial system worked and his sort of responsibility to change what seemed to be wrong for him. Justice Blackmun realizes the subjectivity of… well… Justice? and I guess that this is really what triggers his transformation and made him take a stand against the death penalty.
A second transformation that I thought was really interesting is the one of the woman death row inmate (is it Karla Faye Tucker?) who was condemned to death. I can’t remember Sister Helen Prejean spending much time explaining her transformation but from what I do remember, Karla Faye Tucker had a horrible childhood and murdered several people with a pick axe. Throughout her years in prison, she converted to christianity and became a model prisoner helping others and the prison itself. I’m not explaining it really well but doesn’t the transformation of this woman prove that there can be some good even in the worst of us? Doesn’t this make you think that we should give, even the worst criminals, a second chance? I’m not saying that we should set the prisoners free and give them a second life in society or whatever but I believe that this transformation give us hope. Maybe there is some good in everyone. Maybe we should give these people a second chance. Maybe Karla Faye Tucker could have made that prison a better place. Who knows…
I’m French and in France there is no such thing as the death penalty today; I’ve always been against the capital punishment and it has always seemed obvious for me to be against it. However, these two transformations really impressed me. Justice Blackmun’s search and pondering the issue impressed me. I think that we should always question the obvious, this is something I’m not really used to doing since I’ve grown up in an educational system where people just tell you to learn things by heart and accept them the way they are. Karla Faye Tucker’s transformation also indirectly struck me because it really shows me that anyone can change for the better. It’s true that its not always the case but if there’s that moment of doubt we should give everyone a second chance. I mean, we’re all human beings right? Change is possible and it makes me really hopeful.
Oh yeaaah, you’re right about that woman who killed with the pickaxe, i remember that….and she turned into a better person in jail and was helping the other inmates. And you’re French, I can’t wait to meet you! Where in France did you grow up?
The greatest transformation that I saw while reading the book was in the prisoners themselves, Dobie Gillis Williams and Joseph Roger O’Dell, which is yet to be discussed. To begin with Dobie, before his capital trial, he had come from a very hard background, living in a home that was a whirlwind of domestic violence and even being sent away to live with his father because violence at home was so bad. He got into gangs, did drugs, and barely made it through school. However, after 13 years in prison, Dobie was transformed, his hat that said ‘Don’t Fear’ clearly summing up his maturation. He walked to his own death with dignity, refusing a wheelchair, and before he died, his last words were, ” ‘I just want to say I got no hard feelings for anybody. God bless everybody'” ( Prejean 50). He forgave his prosecutors and the whole world for killing him, an innocent man, and truly there is no greater transfiguration than that. He removed all remnants of human fear and anger, and became one with his impending death, forgiving all in a rare sign of compassion that is very Christ-Like indeed. Similarly with Joseph O’Dell, his past had not been easy. By age 13 he had been arrested in five places, and by age 19 he had 14 felonies on his record. Even though he did not kill Helen, he had a criminal past and to say that he was evolved before his death sentence, would be a reach. However, in the personal quest to prove his own innocence, we saw exponential growth in him, presenting himself blameless before the courts and God. To defend yourself in a court of law takes a huge conviction of personal innocence and blamelessness, and through that experience he grew into the person he always wanted to be; someone that was respectable and had faith in himself. Then at his death, he left this world in dignity. He knew that his case had helped to change the Catholic Catechism, he knew he had the support of 5 million Italians, and he knew he had just given his hand in marriage to someone he truly loved, Lori. Even moments before his death, he retained his innocence and very honorably shared his hope that one day the truth will be revealed. Lastly, he professed his eternal love for Lori, and love is what transformed him forever: the love for himself, for Lori, and for the family of the victim. These two men are not the exception either, for Sister Helen’s account of Karla Faye Tucker also gives witness to a person who experienced a major transfiguration in prison, and she was guilty of her crime. Perhaps it is the fear of death, the opression behind bars, that leads these men and women to change their ways and become model citizens in love and compassion. In death there are no politics, no injustices, no cruelty, only the summation of your experiences and spiritual achievements, so I believe these men and women wanted to enter death with a clear conscience and a loving heart.
I would also like to agree with Hannah and Claire. First, and foremost, the most obvious transformation in this book is that of Sister Helen Prejean herself. Her personal revolution is internal, but it is also very externally directed, and that is far more telling than even the transformation itself. A book has pores, and from these pores there is an active, conscious exchange of information; personal experience from the reader and knowledge and reflections from the author’s text. Sister Helen, as she moved away from Southern Ignorance into a much deeper, more intimate understanding of what it means to be on death row, and to see anyone die at the hands of government, she clearly reveals her increasing anger with the injustice she sees in this corrupt system. So in truth, her book has one job, and she says it herself, ” ‘I hope what you learn here sets you on fire'” ( Prejean XVI). The most wonderful and beneficial transformation is actually that of the reader, for the greatest enemy of freedom is an ambivalent attitude toward the rights of life along with ignorance toward the facts. With the correct knowledge and the right convictions, true change can be generated in this country.
In addition, to Claire’s comment about Justice Blackmun reveals another form of drastic transformation. Justice Blackmun went from a huge proponent of the death penalty to someone who refused to continue working in the ‘machinery of death’. He saw that the rigtht to life had just become another extrisic term in the vast tunnels of American Bureaucracy . Sister Helen provides quite a few examples actually of people that had consciously been a part of the machinery and then left it to oppose the inconsistencies and injustices in the system. I think their transformations may even be the most important of all because they give us a right to all forgive ourselves. Often times progress is derailed because people are afraid to take blame for their actions, but we can all accept that in some way or another we have all been a part of this corrupted justice system and that it is time to step out of our comfort zone and stand up for freedom and ‘due process’.
I’d have to agree that the transformation of Sister Helen Prejean is one of the more obvious ones in the book. Particularly, what stuck with me most was her realization that she too could create an international and political impact on capital punishment even though she originally felt unable to do so as a nun. One transformation that hasn’t been mentioned yet is that of Bud Welch, the father who lost his daughter in a bombing. Although Prejean writes a small section about Welch in the last few pages of the book, his transformation is still of great importance in my opinion. Like any other devastated father, Welch was furious about his daughter’s death at first. So “consumed with anger” that he wanted to end Timothy McVeigh’s life himself. However, memories of his daughter led Welch to believe that revenge wouldn’t be right, that it wouldn’t bring his daughter back, and that there exists a “sanctity of all life.” Instead of lowering himself to the murderer’s level, Welch decided to be the change.
Before I began reading The Death of Innocents, I didn’t necessarily have an opinion on capital punishment, probably because I wasn’t exposed to much information about the matter. However, after completing the book and doing a tad bit of research, I would have to side with Sister Helen’s opposition toward capital punishment. The compelling stories of Dobie Williams and Joseph O’Dell truly appeal to our emotions to show the flaws of our justice system. They were definitely the most influential parts of the book that transformed my thinking. (Although we did not read about any other sources’ perspectives of the cases mentioned in the book, giving Sister Helen a bit of an advantage in her bias). Personally, it’s difficult for me not to oppose the death penalty because of “the death [and humility] of innocents” that continue to occur when the alleged criminals could simply receive life in prison. However, as Sister Helen points out, there are other factors that give good reason to oppose capital punishment, such as the fact that it is significantly cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them.
On a side note, one thing this book reminded me of was the winner of the Arthur Ashe Award for Courage at the ESPYs this year. I had to look him up to remember his name (Dewey Bozella). But basically, he was wrongly convicted of murder and served over twenty years in prison before the case was overturned. He had a troubled past which is probably why he was suspected of the crime, and after being convicted he was bitter at first. After a few years in prison though, he learned that being angry wasn’t going to change anything (similar to Welch). Dewey even had a chance to talk to the murderer of his brother, but instead of yelling at him or trying to attack him, Dewey forgave him. Dewey transformed from a hot-headed troublemaker to a wise, calm, and happier man. Once released from prison, he started his life again not letting any bitterness slow him down. He worked at a local gym teaching kids about boxing and staying out of trouble. And now he’s training to hopefully have one professional boxing match. The actual story is much more interesting than my condensed version and there’s even a cool video you can watch here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6740501
Austin, you bring up a good point with your story of Dewey Bozalla. The Death Of Innocents deals with people who were wrongfully executed, but I bet an even more widespread issue it that people are wrongly convicted/ imprisoned.
I agree with you Spencer, and that’s what transformed my thinking the most in regards to our legal system. The idea that someone could be wrongfully imprisoned, and even executed, even in a country as well off as America, frightens me very much. Before reading this book, I was thoroughly convinced that you could not possibly be wrongfully imprisoned if the facts were on your side, but the presentation of both Dobie and Joseph’s cases in the courtroom shows that this is not true. And these were cases which, according to the book, were hardly ambigious in evidence. Couple this with knowing that I have no knowledge of obscure laws, and I tend to worry about what will happen if I’m arrested for whaling in Nebraska. Granted, that example is severe and ridiculous, but I know if that law is obscure, surely there are laws that are much easier to break that are possibly as obscure, and this is what worries me. If there are justices, lawyers, and the like who prosecute for their own benefit, (which, knowing human nature must always be the case, and cannot be blamed on their being prosecutors, lawyers or judges, but on their being human) then what happens when ambition meets ambigious evidence? Before reading the book, I was not worried about prosecutorial ambition, I was under the naive impression that justice would triumph when logic was shown. But human follies being what they are, I am, as a whole, far less reassured then when I began this book.
On a related note, I am, at the same time, relieved and encouraged by stories such as Dobie’s that are so filled with forgiveness that I can’t help but be filled with hope. If only all people could embrace the ideals of compassion that Sister Prejean devotes her life to and recognize the beauty of Dobie’s forgiveness and peace towards everyone one earth. (50). Whether the death penalty is right or wrong, at the root, the question should be how we would feel in such a situation. I would never have began to think about the guards who did the actual executions before this book, and having read it, believe that the death penalty should be reviewed with empathy towards all parties.
In response to the second prompt, I believe that the most noticeable and important moment of transformation as far as the argument against the death penalty is the section where the case of Karla Faye Tucker is addressed. Indeed, more than the first half of the book is dedicated to Dobie Williams and Joseph O’Dell, two prisoners whom Helen Prejean believed to be innocent. The argument that the death penalty shouldn’t exist because of the possibility of executing innocents is a strong argument. The case of Karla Faye Tucker, though, is different: she was actually guilty of her crimes. Now, the murders she committed were difficult to digest, and it seems paradoxical to bring up such a heinous crime while trying to argue against the death penalty, but this point in the book was the most powerful for me. No one would argue that it’s right to execute an innocent individual. But this case was poignant in that it acknowledged her grave mistake, but still remained firmly against the death penalty. The book became more about the concept of the death penalty rather than the potential for mistakes in exactly who was to be killed. The segment on page 245 was most telling of this transition.
“Yes, she’s guilty of a horrible crime–she killed two helpless people with a pickaxe–but she seems genuinely remorseful for her crime…Couldn’t she spend the rest of her life helping other prisoners to change their lives? Is a strict ‘eye for an eye’ always called for?”
This transformation of the book brings our attention not to the poor men who were likely wrongly executed but rather to the idea that even those guilty of the worst crimes have the potential to change and become better. The idea of the humanness of everyone is essential in this argument, and I felt as though it was an incredibly important point of transformation for the book.
For me, there was one more specific point in the book that changed my view of the death penalty. I agreed with Helen Prejean on almost every point she made throughout the book. However, there was always something in the back of my mind asking myself whether I would really adhere to those anti-death penalty ideals if it had been someone I loved who was killed. It’s something to take under consideration, and I’m sure that I have no way of knowing how I’d react if someone I loved was killed. Would I want revenge? I had a hard time thinking I wouldn’t. Wouldn’t anybody want the sort of divine justice offered by the execution of a killer? The issue bothered me and, while there were only a couple of pages to go in the book, I resigned myself to believing that Helen Prejean probably wouldn’t address it in whole. However, it was just then that my thoughts concerning revenge and the satisfaction thereof were transformed. The brief story of Bud Welch, whose daughter was killed, made me understand what it really would mean for that “divine justice” to be carried out. These feelings were best conveyed by Welch’s statement: “Whatever happens to McVeigh really had nothing to do with my spiritual task. I have to reconcile myself to the empty chair, where once our precious Julie once sat.” This statement, though brief and concise, gave me a world of understanding. Thankfully, I’ve never had to worry about such weighty issues as the murder of a loved one. But this made me believe that, were it ever to happen, it would be not so much the aspect of revenge that I would give the most thought, but instead the aspect of emotional healing. This little excerpt gave me the biggest transformation of opinion than the rest, with which I readily agreed.
These are all very go responses to this guestion. I believe that nearly all of the moments of transformation have been presented. However, I feel that there was another moment where there is a glimer of change for the future. At the end of the book we are introduced to a Mr. David Wymore, a leader in Colorado’s Office of the State Public Defender. He has trained/prepared many public defenders in the state to elevate their effectiveness in representing his or her client. After being prepared in jury selection, these defenders have been able to stay off death sentences, resulting on only three individuals currently waiting appeals on death row.
To me this is evolutionary. The model that Mr. Wymore has established here in Colorado is one that defenders in other states should look to. This is of course a small tranformation in the larger picture. The overall culture must be more active in embracing the movement toward abolishing the death penalty.
Billy, I was really moved by that moment of transformation. For me, the whole book was very informative, but also very depressing. When I finally got to that point in the book, real change was more than I could hope for. The fact that Colorado managed to fix their system gave me hope.
The whole book transformed my views on the death penalty. Yes, I’ve always been agains the death penalty, but never as strongly as now. I always had vague thoughts against it. I remember in my freshman World Civ. class the teacher mentioned how much more expensive it is to put someone to death, rather than keep them in prison for life. That just seemed ridiculous to me. At the time I had assumed that America used the death penalty simply because they didn’t want to pay for someone to live who had done something so wrong. (Yes, I know I was naive). Then I heard about how many people had been freed from Death Row because of DNA evidence and this pushed me even more against the death penalty. I thought, if we can’t even be sure these people committed the crime, why are we continuing to kill them? Finally, by reading this book I realized how many people are probably being convicted and sentenced to death, who are innocent. It’s just ridiculous and sad!
I was in a similar situation with Alison as well. Before, I thought that it was more expensive to keep someone in prison for life than to just kill that person. But from a video that I saw and shared in Question 4 (another link below), that was simply not true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vBJ3oyLkzk
In regards to the book, Jasmine’s and Suzanna’s responses pretty much sum up my thoughts. I was surprised at how religious values are able to change over time. While I am not religious myself (because I do not want to limit myself to a rigid set of beliefs), I applaud the pope’s efforts to end the death penalty, not only because of Prejean, but also because of his willingness to change. I think if religion is going to survive, its values are going to need to change with the world around us as it changes.
Also, I agree with Billy that the fight to end corruption should not begin and end in only one state. Every state, but especially the Southern states, should follow their lead. It is sad to think that even Catholics are not willing to follow the pope’s lead in the death penalty. Conservatism is something that should be obsolete by now!
UPDATE: California is starting a ballot initiative to end the death penalty and replace it with life sentence without parole in the 2012 election. Another step forward against the death penalty! Again, their voice needs to be heard in every state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2qzioMZ9qU
(This video is more about the media coverage and less the California initiative itself, but the message is still there. This person has plenty more death penalty videos on his channel as well.)
Thanks for the link! Here’s another from today’s New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/opinion/the-misuse-of-life-without-parole.html?_r=1&hp
Seems like its gaining ground as a topical issue. What do you think?
haha YAAAAY, and we’re old enough to vote on it now! woo hoo!
When reading the string of comments, what seems to be the leading trend is the transformation of Sister Helen Prejean, herself. And, when first discovering this topic, I agreed, as well, that she had the most prominent transformation. It is interesting to hear how she first started out visiting inmates, being naive and having little to no expectations for the inmates. Yet, she quickly learns the torturous lives these inmates suffer through, and she becomes passionate for saving their lives and for revealing the truth behind inmates awaiting death. Her transformation somewhat mirrors my own naivety at the beginning of the book that changed to sheer shock and horror.
My personal transformation occurred when reading about Joseph O’Dell. I honestly never thought about an innocent man being put to death, and yes, Dobie’s case was first in the book, but this whole scenario of putting innocents to death did not hit me until reading about how O’Dell was refused DNA testing. With just one simple test, O’Dell could have been easily proved innocent or guilty, yet the courts and the jurors based his whole conviction on the loose evidence that was presented, with little or no questions asked. This entire situation really put into perspective the unfairness of the justice system and its reluctance towards change.
One event of transformation that I actually found inspiring was that of Karla Faye Tucker. I know it is mentioned above how she was guilty of murder and then found faith in religion and her spirituality, but I just thought I’d mention how brave she was. She openly confessed to murder, and rightfully so, yet she was able to overcome her internal conflicts, and ultimately change her outlook on life through spirituality. I find it interesting how much a person can change when they are waiting for death, which is prominent in the many cases presented in the book.
I agree with Joel’s comment that O’Dell did have a transformation in this book. However, I would also like to point out, much like Maddie’s comment, that Lori’s transformation is pretty significant as well. Sister Prejean throughout O’Dell’s chapter clearly outlines her transformation to a somewhat ignorant (in relation to the death penalty) person to a vocal opponent of the death penalty. Prejean shows that Lori slowly realizes that the cause she is fighting for does not seem to be listening to her arguments, even when she provides solid and well presented ones. In the end, Lori now wants to go into law school to prevent (or at least reduce) cases such as O’Dell’s from happening.
Also, I am amazed on how Lori was also able to transform the thinking of the Catholic world with regards to the death penalty. Lastly, I think that her transforming of O’Dell’s case from a domestic issue to an international issue involving the Vatican and Italy helped a lot in raising the issue of the death penalty to a wider audience; sadly though that it did not help prove O’Dell’s innocence and remove him from death row.
While reading this book, I also had a kind of transformation, though less remarkable than Lori’s transformation. As a Filipino living in Thailand, I am not that familiar with the judiciary system of the US. I know that it involves a jury system and the constitution is an important part of the system. From what I see in TV and what I read, the judiciary system of the US seems to be a good one, and as Prejean points out in the book, some countries even try to emulate this system. However, while reading this book, I realized that this system has its flaws, especially with regards to the death penalty. Personally, I oppose the death penalty, and think that it is a violation of the person’s human rights. But, to be honest, I did not really know much about it, like how does a person get into the death row? Reading this book provided me with some answers to that question, and it provided me with a deeper insight to the issue, which reaffirmed my previous position of opposing the death penalty. Although, it is only a small transformation, I think it is still a valid one as knowing more about an issue is always helpful in making a decision.
I agree with Kaela when she talks about Bud Welch’s moment of transformation. It is easy for people, myself included, who have never faced the loss of a loved one to murder to oppose the death penalty due to its lack of moral backbone, the possibility of the innocent being swept onto death row, the large amount of government finances that are put into death penalty trials, etc. etc. Nevertheless, we have to take into consideration that we cannot possibly know how it feels to lose the people we love. Even if we tried to open our minds and put ourselves in the shoes of the victims’ families, it still would be impossible to literally FEEL how they felt. We have not had to go through that experience. So does that gives us the right to vote against avenging their families?
I don’t know if Bud Welch ever actually forgave Timothy McVeigh for taking Julie away in the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, but I think that it still inspires hope that, even through the fierce anger and desperation of losing a daughter, he was able to realize that avenging Julie’s murder through McVeigh’s death would not bring Julie back. It would not bring him satisfaction. And it makes me glad to know that there are associations out there, such as Murder Victim’s Families for Human Rights or Bridges to Life, that work to redirect anger and to reduce the feeling of revenge through the death penalty.
I would also like to point out, using Bud Welch as an example, that people that lose loved ones to murder may not feel hatred toward the murderer, but rather feel hatred toward the murderer’s crime. Of course this is arguable and, again, I cannot really understand exactly what it is that people when they lose someone they love, but I would still like to pose this question: Can you really hate someone that you don’t even know?
People are defined by their values and opinions, and sure, what good are those if people are not loyal to them? However, I don’t believe that a person is completely defined by his or her actions. There is a great deal more to a person than what someone can speculate from just one action.
Another moment of transformation, or rather half-transformation (and I’ll explain why in a bit), that I think is significant is found in the trial of Jeremy Gross. The jurors assigned to this trial went into court close-minded and with all the intention of following “procedure”. One juror was even noted that before the trial he’d thought, “This is pretty easy. This won’t take long. Guilty. And death” (256). Despite their expectations, the jurors found compassion for Jeremy Gross because of the mitigating factors present in Jeremy’s life. They voted to not sentence Jeremy to death because they learned how to understand his hardships. Even though there are juries that vote for the death penalty despite valid mitigating circumstances, that is not the case in all trials. It is nice to know that amongst all of the jurors that ignore certain specifics of trials by following precedent, there are also jurors that understand that each case is unique and deserves to not be generalized. I think Jeremy Gross’ qualifies as a moment of transformation because the case got the jurors to look past their expectations.
What I mean when I say that it is a moment of half-transformation is as Sister Helen Prejean states, “To reform the death penalty system, the defense of Jeremy Gross must be the rule, not the exception” (256). Although there have been moments in which people have been pulled from their expectations, I feel as though there is still a long way to go.
This book was riddled with stories of transformations, as large as Sister Helen Prejean’s to as small as the little snippets we see of the random prison guard pulling her aside to voice his or her dissent with the death penalty. As has already been mentioned by Christian and others, I also found Lori Urs’ transformation important to Prejean’s argument, possibly because she was so relatable. Joseph O’Dell constantly mentioned her innocence to the injustice the legal system was capable of. She genuinely believed, just as I did, that justice was not only possible but it was inevitable with the United States’ justice system. Reading about the denial of something as huge as DNA testing was almost unbelievable to us both. It seemed so strange to me that something like this was possible in modern day America. Lori’s transformation and the way she used it to do her best to do good was very inspiring.
Another transformation that stood out to me was that of journalist Tucker Carlson. A quick recap, Carlson was the journalist who had “admired Bush” up until he interviewed him about Karla Faye Tucker’s case and saw Bush mock her plea for help. The fact that the governor was and is the last hope for death row inmates and could mock someone about to be executed is appalling, and must have been even more so for Carlson who had admired this man. He also seemed to be mocking the legal system in this act, and in this moment shattered Carlson’s ideas of what the justice system was all about.
The last two pages of the book were the most heartbreaking for me. They included Bud Welch who mourned the loss of his daughter and began angry but is now speaking out against the death penalty and has enough compassion to feel for the father of his daughter’s murderer. This complete transformation was awe-inspiring, and made the story of the execution only a few paragraphs later that much more horrific. It was an incredibly powerful way to end this book.
Wow, everyone is so insightful, and the major characters seem to be covered. I tried thinking about the minor characters whom I might have forgotten, and after flipping through the pages, I landed on pp. 165-166. It has the letter from Steven Watson, “the jailhouse snitch” who was responsible for securing Joe in the death sentence. It’s not much of a transformation, but more of a realization that what he did was wrong and selfish. All he cared about before was his own life, but after the years passed, he is internally convicted of lying and having a man’s blood on his conscience. If only he realized this before Joe’s death.
Like most people who responded to the second question, I too did not know much about the death penalty and the court system, and just always assumed the judges and justices and all the people whose titles start with J not only had a good head on their shoulders but also had a compassionate heart. How wrong I was, I realized after reading The Death of Innocents. Now, I am honestly angered at the uncaring people who all played a part in the deaths of Dobie Williams and Joe O’Dell. With the knowledge I have absorbed from this inspiring autobiography, my take on the death penalty has turned from ignorant apathy to desire fueled by anger to spread this wildfire of knowledge to all of America until everyone has heard of the injustices made by the so called epitome of justice.
Oooooh, good point about the jailhouse snitch! You’re right, he does feel remorse later on.
There are so many good points already made, and characters highlighted that I didn’t even think of. I agree with a lot of you that said the main transformation occurred within Sister Helen herself. She says on pg. 179 that she thought, “Charity was the most important virtue, but its practice was directed to individuals, never to systems of oppression.” She contiues that once she moved to the St. Thomas Housing Project in New Orleans and encountered real poverty that she realized its true realities. This made her believe that as a Christian is was up to her to change the system because no one was meant to be poor, and it was a problem society created. After this point her mind set completely changed and she has been able to transform others with her. She was able to get the Catholic Church to change its views and continues to make people consider if the death penalty is really justice at all.
One of the transformations that stood out to me was that of the jury in Jeremy Gross’s case. With such a brutal murder caught on video, many of the jurors went in the trial believing that this case would be easy, and that Gross would be sentenced to die. As the jury learned of Gross’s troubled past and family, their opinions completely transformed. Eventually, the jurors “…voted unanimously to spare the life of eighteen-year-old Jeremy Gross, even though they found him guilty of a truly egregious crime” (Page 253). This also showed the difference between a competent lawyer and the one given to Dobie Williams. At first, hearing Gross’s story, I was shocked that he escaped death. I was also extremely surprised that the vote was unanimous. I thought that surely, after reading of all these cases with a pro-death jury, someone would not have been swayed by Gross’s lawyer. His crime was cruel, and killing Beer’s would have been unnecessary after he was already injured in order for Gross to take the money from the cash register. My own opinions started transforming as I read about Gross’s past. I started to understand how the jury’s opinions could change. For many, Bob Hill’s (Gross’s lawyer) defense hit the jury at an emotional and personal level. It relieves me to know that opinion’s can change, given facts and background to a story. Many of the stories in this book seem unfair and show people as close-minded and stubborn individuals. Gross’s story instead showed hope for change in the transformation of the jury.
The one that stood out to me was the transformation of Karla Faye Tucker. A woman who succumbed to childhood prostitution and heavy drug use, she brutally killed two people with a pickax as they slept. In prison she was mean, foul, and intentionally isolated herself from those around her. However, as she progressed, she completely turned herself around and was a model prisoner. In addition, Prejean indicated that Tucker was interested in reforming those around her too. This is so powerful, because I believe that we shouldn’t just abolish the death penalty, but life without parole as well. I think that transformative stories like hers are indicative of the incredible capacity of human change We should be giving prisoners the maximum incentive possible to reform–the possibility of coming back into society and the prospect of leaving prison.
Sister Helen herself experienced several moments of transformation, and we saw some of these in her novel. The first of these was her transition into the poverty-stricken neighborhoods of her community, followed soon thereafter into the world of death row inmates. However, I believe the most immense transformation was Sister Helen’s realization that the judicial system, especially when it involves the death penalty, is anything but fair. This wasn’t an instant realization, but one that we could see Sister Helen reaching throughout her story. This was also the most important to me because it opened my eyes as well. I have never been a proponent of the death penalty, but until this point I had trusted the state and federal governments to seek out the truth above all else. I was shocked by the tendency to ignore new evidence in an attempt to expedite executions.
I think watching Lori Urs transform was the most interesting because I think it would be the transformation most Americans would make if they educated themselves on our judicial system. I barely knew anything about our courts systems and the death penalty before reading this book, and my eyes were really opened by reading it. Before, I didn’t have a strong opinion whether I was pro/con the death penalty. But hearing the testimonies from this book changed my point of view and it would change other people’s minds too.
The biggest moment of transformation for me in the book was the end of the first chapter during and after Dobie’s execution. It was a huge moment of transformation for Sister Helen because she had spent years with Dobie serving as his spiritual advisers and like so many others who worked with Dobie fighting to get him justice; she came to know him as a human being. When Dobie was executed, I feel as though the fight for his freedom shifted from sadness to outrage and the author’s desire to get his story out there. In a conversation between Sister Helen and Betty Williams, Betty says, “Nobody ever heard his voice, he never got to speak” and Sister Helen states “And then my mission to write his story is sealed” (53). I feel as though this is a moment of transformation because up until this point, nobody listened to Dobie…and after his execution, Sister Helen made it her goal to make sure his story went public.