If you had the chance to talk with Sister Helen (which you will in October), what would you want to ask her?
40 thoughts on “Question 7: What I Want to Ask Sister Helen”
Why do you as the author portray all prosecutors as the side that bends or breaks the rules, and portray the defense as the constant “underdog” when in fact, we have an adversarial system in which both sides MUST share evidence and all of the acts you stated prosecutors commit are also comitted by defense attorneys?
I’d like to ask how she finds the strength to fight back one’s natural human emotion. To be there and provide comfort for those condemned to death, without breaking down herself. I know that the pressure must be immense on a person, knowing that you get to walk out of there when it’s all over. I don’t know if i could hold it together. If not, then I will have done the exact opposite of comforting and terrified them in their last moments. Now, i’m not a religious person, but is that what Sister Prejean depends on for her strength? Because that is quite a feat of human spirit, and i highly admire those who are strong spiritually. I would like to ask if she gives God all of the credit for her strength, or if she believes she is a strong person without God’s help.
I’m curious to learn what her reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden was. In the book, Prejean says:
“With the qualifying criterion taken away, whom then might governments kill? Killers of police officers? Or of children? Or of a room full of people? Or a building full of people? Or…terrorists such as Osama bin Laden?
No one.”
I think what she was saying here is that the updated catechism does not approve of the execution of anyone, no matter how awful their crimes are, but she wrote this before bin Laden’s death, so I wonder what her reaction was, especially since his death was generally seen as a great thing. I’m sure she didn’t approve of the national reaction, with crowds shouting “USA! USA!” But if she protests his death, that probably won’t be received too well by a lot of Americans…
I plan on asking her how she kept doing what she did thorugh the years. I’m amazed at her compassion, and her ability to become so close to someone she knew would be killed.
I would like to know what she thinks about WHY so many people support capital punishment and WHY people, like those described in her book, go to such lengths to carry out these death sentences. I feel like someone with her life experiences would know a great deal about human nature and certain instincts in people that cause us to act in such immoral ways. Also, I wonder if she believes people are inherently good or inherently evil. Personally, I think people are good, but I have not witnessed much evil in the world, so I have a somewhat limited perspective. It seems to me that if people are inherently good, then there must be specific reasons/causes of why such atrocities occur. If the causes of these atrocities could be identified and solved then maybe there would be less evil in the world. However, if people are evil, there’s not really a whole lot that could be done.
I would like to learn more about Prejean’s stance on separation of church and state. With Justice Scalia’s hypocrisy on the death penalty based on his religious beliefs, is it possible to have complete separation in the government? Or will religion always play a role in the minds of those in power?
I would really like to ask her why she choose the two cases about Dobbie and O’Dell. Both are compelling against the death penalty, however what I found more concerning were the other issues that were brought up such as corruption in the government and the court system (which I see to be the real problem) due to prejudices. Wouldn’t it have been better to choose cases where there weren’t as many other factors to distract from her main point? Maybe a case where someone was given a fair trial and was still convicted of a crime of which they were innocent. While I would agree that they definitely show cases where capital punishment is wrongly dealt, I feel that they really deal with other issues that go beyond capital punishment.
In the book, there was some serious doubt as to whether Dobbie and O’Dell were truly guilty. I would like to ask Sister Helen if her job as a spiritual adviser to these death row inmates is any different, perhaps more challenging, when she is dealing with a prisoner who is, without a doubt, guilty of his/her crimes. Does she feel the same compassion for these inmates as she does for those whose guilt is questionable?
Sister Prejean was once asked in an interview, “If we could tell for sure who was guilty, would it be O.K.?” She responded by saying, “It isn’t and never will be because of what it does to us. There’s a death of innocence in all of us. Look what happens to Supreme Court Justices who do these nuanced constitutional arguments and send people to their deaths and never touch the human cheek, the suffering. So I say, for our own sake as a society, let’s take death off the table. We can’t handle it.”
She firmly believes that regardless of the magnitude of the crime, one should not be executed. According to her, it is torture, and does not bring justice to anyone. What then if there was justification to subject a human to “torture”. This is my question to her: “In your book, one of your primary cases against capital punishment was by saying that it was torture to execute a man, regardless of his innocence. In the case of capital punishment, a man’s death is the supposed justice to a crime that he has (or may have) already committed. What is your opinion on excercising torture to prevent a crime from being committed to begin with? To be more candid, should the government be able to torture someone such as a terrorist in order to prevent an inexcusable tragedy from occuring?”
Similar to Robert H’s comment, I am truly interested in how Sister Helen detaches or controls her emotions when watching prisoners on death row, especially during family visits. I wonder if it is a constant battle to suppress emotions or emotionally detach, thus enabling her to avoid being overcome with anger, sadness, or anxiety. Or is it that when she accompanies and counsels prisoners she’s learned to reach a state that separates judgement and thought processes from chemical emotions, similar to what is achieved through meditation but without the formalities involved? A state that isn’t unhealthily suppressing or ignoring the body’s natural response to such situations. I ask this because merely fighting one’s emotions may work in the present or short-term but unless the emotions are addressed in another way I believe it would be inevitable for a human being to experience a major breakdown, if not multiple.
A followup question to my first is if Sister Helen has had emotional breakdowns whether it is overwhelming sadness and grief or utter outrage towards those who were directly involved in the practices of what Sister Helen believes is torture?
I couldn’t see where I could edit my post so this is just to add onto my last question. I wanted to provide textual support for my statement regarding Sister Helen’s belief and interpretation of the death penalty. She labels capital punishment as, “torturous deaths of fellow human beings,” (109).
This may sound awful but at some point she mentions just wanting to go home and have time to herself, being away from the jails and the people involved, and to me it almost sounded like a “hidden” relief to finally have it behind her. Is there a certain relief for her in the death of any death row inmates, just as the inmates express relief that the waiting is over? Once the decision has been made that they will be executed the only thing to do is wait, and to me that wait would be the worst, and most “relieving” (albeit tragic) when it was over.
She does not address the needs of the victim and their family very persistently, and I can understand that because it is so very difficult to help someone who in so much pain, however, I feel that spiritually, counsel of the victim is in need of the most improvement. So first, what kind of counsel and services can we give the victims family, spiritually and psychologically, that will give them closure on a case without the retribution of an ‘eye for an eye’? Does she believe it possible for the victims and the accused to reconcile themselvs to some form of forgiveness and mercy?
Then on a national scale, the mutual feeling of victimization has led us to the most extreme politics, a policy of these politics being capital punishment, so I ask, what is needed for a national healing? What counsel is needed in America to help people forgive others of even the most heinous crimes? How can we teach people to not simply point the finger at others when they are in pain, but to tell their story and to dedicate their lives to helping ‘stop a crime before it happens’?
In her mind, what is the most influential factor in making a killer, and how can we as a community work to help these people to not make that very fatal decision?
The issue of the correlation between the religious “Bible Belt” and the highest rates of executions disturbed me. I’m not a religious person, and I’m wondering whether Sister Helen thinks that there is a reason for this correlation. I’m not trying to offend, rather I’m asking a legitimate question to any of you who might have insight into this question. Justice Scalia is quoted in the book as having said “To Christians, death is no big deal.” But isn’t that a legitimate point? While I’m not religious, I studied religion in school. If the people convicted of terrible crimes are indeed innocent, then doesn’t the Catholic belief of a heavenly eternity await them? Isn’t it one of the most basic points of Christianity that, no matter what is suffered in the mortal world, true justice will be dealt in the afterlife? While most of the things I learned about Justice Scalia deeply disturbed me, I think he may have had a point when he said that death was “no big deal” for Christians. This is where I think the purely religious argument falls through. In the face of an eternity of blissful paradise, aren’t earthy sufferings just a farce? It only follows that indeed they would be. How would a religious woman overcome this paradox?
Again, I am not trying to be offensive, and I agree with Sister Helen on her views on the death penalty. I think it’s an awful construct that should be abolished. However, I’m truly interested to hear both your thoughts and hers on this particular subject.
Just for the sake of bringing up a new side of the arguement; what would her response be towards someone who IS proven guilty, where there is absolutely no doubt upon conviction? I see that some people have posted about Osama Bin Laden. Let’s say that someone of his caliber was arrested and tried on American soil. Would she prefer to have him simply spend life in prison?
I’m not going to get into my stance on the death penalty at this point, but I would like to bring up the economic side. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain the life of someone is prison. If someone is being held captive until death, is that not the same as slowly killing someone? I realize it is not murder in the sense that you are simply waiting until the person as passed away. Having said this, it is cheaper to put someone to death than to support them until their death day.
If the court has decided that someone no longer has the right to live among the people of the world, do we use tax-payers money to support the life of someone who has taken so many other lives? Or do we condemn them to their own death? I’m interested to see what you guys think.
Maddie, I also found the fact that she used Osama bin Laden’s name in the list of people who don’t deserve the death penalty interesting. I just wonder if she views his death differently, because it wasn’t necessarily capital punishment brought on by the US court system, but a military killing?
I want to ask her how she found the strength to decide to fight such a huge system. I don’t know if I would have made the same decision, I may have felt the fight was lost before it began. I also wonder if she feels how big of an impact she’s made.
1. Sister Helen is critical of the judicial system and how it unjustly incarcerates and kills innocent people. I would like to know how she proposes we remedy this problem of unfairness in the Court.
2. Given her experience with the law/Court, I would like to ask Sister Helen if she thinks it is realistically possible to achieve her goal (ending the death penalty) within her lifetime.
3. I would like to know her response(s) to people who favor capital punishment instead of life in prison due to the costs involved. For example, in 2001 it cost $22,632 to incarcerate an inmate for one year. In 2005 this number increased to an average of $23,876. With the number of prisoners in the United States multiplied by several years (if not life) in prison this adds up to billions of dollars being spent. Abolishment of the death penalty would mean an increased financial burden for taxpayers. I would like to know what her fiscal solution is to this burden.
4. I would like to know what Sister Helen has learned from her life so far and all the memorable experiences she has gone through. Specifically I am curious to know what she has learned about herself and the human spirit.
1. I would ask Sister Helen about the current status of Lori Urs O’Dell. I am fascinated by Lori’s relationship with Joseph O’Dell… I would love to know more about what Sister Helen thinks about the marriage and the lasting effects of the relationship on Lori through Helen’s eyes.
2. Like Elizabeth P. I have been wondering about what Sister Hellen thinks about the extremely high costs of keeping prisoners detained for life verses capital punishment which would relieve a large financial burden for taxpayers. Are there alternative solutions?
I would like to ask Sister Helen Prejean how she mentally and emotionally deals with everything that she has come across while being the spiritual advisor for various people that have been executed? She has obviously dealt with extreme sadness after these people have been killed in front of her eyes, frustration that the justice system continues to kill innocent people, and many other thoughts and emotions that I cannot even imagine. I don’t know anyone that has the strength and willpower to do what Sister Helen does and think that she is an amazing woman for doing what she does.
In response to Elizabeth P.’s (above) second question I would like to say that I was thinking the same thing as she is. Does Sister Helen think that she can make enough of an impact with the help of others to put an end to the death penalty? Also, what can young college students such as ourselves do to promote the issue of innocent people being executed and help create awareness about the flaws in the justice system?
I had wanted to ask her the same thing, Audrey. She is so full of passion for this issue and compassion for those on death row. How does she deal with the injustice that surrounds her? If I were to put myself in her shoes, I would be frustrated. How does she draw upon Christ’s forgiveness for the judges and politicians who authorize the death penalty without thinking twice about what they are doing?
I would like to ask her to explain her opinion of the purpose of the prison system and the death sentence. Because, to me, it seems they are intended to punish criminals rather than teach them and provide them skills to be re-integrated into society. It seems that once someone is sentenced to prison, they will continuously be in a cycle of being released and re-incarcerated for the rest of their life or until their crimes progress to demanding a life sentence or death penalty.
As Edward stated, I would also like to know Sister Prejean’s opinion about the separation of church and state, especially as it applies to the death penalty. Prejean spends a large amount of time in the book discussing the Catholic population’s journey from staunch support of the death penalty to questioning it’s moral coordiance with Catholic beliefs such as love and compassion for all people. Mostly notably, Prejean describes the shift in views of the Pope, who ends up rewriting Catholic teaching on the death penalty, and notes this as a triumph in seeking the eradification of the death penalty. But should the opinion of a religious sect really have an effect on the way our judicial system functions?
Further, Justice Scalia’s citation of chapter 13 (Paul’s Epistle to the Romans) as justification for carrying out the death penalty was astounding to me. How can it be acceptable for a judge, as a representative of a supposedly secular government, to openly denote religious text to make his case? Even more shocking to me was Scalia’s denunciation of democracy, the very system under which he was elected, by stating that it was “difficult to see hand of God or of any higher moral authority behind the fools and rogues – as the losers would have it – whom we ourselves elect to do our own will”. I would like to know how Sister Prejean feels about the inclusion of religious views in legal jurisdiction; is this ever okay?
I would also like to ask her if she could imagine herself fighting for any other causes. And how she knew that captial punishment was the issue that God intended her to be involved in.
Like Joy, I’d like to ask Sister Helen how she controls her emotions. When being interviewed about Bush’s hypocrisy in asking God (to) bless Karla Faye, she writes: “I had to struggle mightily to keep a vow I made to reverence every person, even those with whom I disagree most vehemently. Inside my soul I raged at Bush’s hypocrisy”. I understand that as a nun, she is a role model to love and respect all. But she also is one of the biggest abolitionists of the death penalty – why didn’t she let people know how she truly felt about George Bush? It wouldn’t have to be rude, but neutrality can only go so far.
I’m also curious in the quality of the workplace of the prison employees (the guards, especially). In the book, she wrote that many have admitted being disturbed by their jobs, some to the point of quitting. On one hand, it’s easy to become frustrated with them for administrating the death penalty. However, they have families and lifestyles to support. Is there any way to ameliorate the killing jobs of the guards, or is there no way to better a state-ordered execution?
I want to ask Sister Helen about how/if she thinks socio-economics play a part in people’s beliefs about the death penalty and if so how she addresses this when speaking to different groups around the country. It would be interesting to see if she changes her arguments bases upon the people she is speaking to.
I was really drawn to the idea of socio-economics throughout the book. Obviously there is much evidence for lower income Americans being put to death more frequently but what really opened my eyes to the issue was when Sister Helen discussed Justice Scalia. She wrote that “Justice Scalia attends Mass in a wealthy white suburban parish and sings Latin hymns. I attend Mass in an African American church and sing spirituals” (pg. 171). And in continuation, “When Scalia sends people to their deaths, he never sees their faces. But I see their faces as they turn to look at me when they are being killed” (172). When I read this I realized how easy it is to not think about the death penalty if your life is removed from it. I have never supported the death penalty, but at the same time I never gave it a lot of thought because it never touched my life. In this way it seems to me that people like Justice Scalia who never actually feel the pain and suffering that is on both sides of the death penalty and thus it is easier for them to oppose it. I am interested to see how Sister Helen deals with the issue of talking and arguing over the death penalty with people who are removed from the actual process.
I was re-reading my post and realized that one of my sentences doesn’t make sense. It should read: “In this way it seems to me that people like Justice Scalia never actually feel the pain and suffering that is on both sides of the death penalty and thus it is easier for them to oppose it.”
I would really like to ask her how much of her aversion to the death penalty is based on her religious beliefs and how much is just her own personal convictions. I also would like to ask her about her views on our world’s decreasing resources. In her book she states that the cost of actually killing someone on death row is more expensive than giving them a life in prison but how can she justify feeding and caring for people who have killed fellow human beings? When innocent children are starving on the street and our state is paying for condemned criminals to eat full meals every day how does that even begin to be fair?
Like Matthew, I would like to ask her how she sees the torture of suspected terrorists, and what her opinion is on the subject. Many people justify such methods by saying that they prevent the deaths of others, and I think it would be interesting to hear if she believes that the ends justify the means, or if torture is abhorrent under any circumstances.
1. I want to know what she believes the role of religion in civil society should be. At one point in her book she clearly goes against the idea of a theocracy, but while she supports a secular democracy, she still tries to elicit the power of the catholic church to invoke change in public policy, and pressure those in power to shift their stances through religious morals. How do we hold in check the natural desire among those in power to dictate personal decision making by turning to their religious beliefs (What would God or Jesus want me to do?).
2. I want to know her stance on life without parole. In light of her strong beliefs on the power of a human being to redeem themselves and turn around their life (like that of Karla Faye Tucker), I would hope that she find a sentence of life without parole to be uniquely dehumanizing. Rather than allowing the convicted the opportunity to redeem themselves and be readmitted into society, they are told with a sentence of life without parole that they have no chance of being rehabilitated, and are left to waste away with no incentive to be a responsible prisoner.
3. What are her policy recommendations to ensure that indigent defender’s receive proper representation?
I actually have several questions I would like to ask Sister Helen. I really liked Elizabeth P.’s first two questions, and I’m wondering the same things. While she has shown through her book that our justice system has extraordinary flaws, how much of it does Sister Helen think can be rescued? The system is so firmly a part of our country and culture, it is difficult to imagine anything drastically different, even if it should be so. If Sister Helen were able to rework our justice system (not just involving capital crimes, but overall), what changes would she make, or would she create an entirely new system? What kinds of justice systems would these changes result in?
I am also curious as to Sister Helen’s views of religion vs. state. While our nation is supposed to have a separation of the two, she showed well how even high government officials such as Justice Scalia have inevitably brought religion and personal opinion into something that is supposed to be objective. I wonder if Sister Helen finds it appropriate that personal opinion is continually brought into government, whether she feels that it is possible to completely separate church and state (and what would have to happen to create that separation), and where she can see the positive and negative effects of religion in our not-fully-separated government?
In the “Acknowledgments” at the beginning of Death of Innocents, Sister Helen Prejan’s quotation of “chief editor Daniel Menaker” stuck with me through my reading. Menaker said, “With the publication of ‘Dead Man Walking’, we opened the national conversation about the death penalty. With ‘The Death of Innocents’, we’re going to catalyze public discourse that will end the death penalty.”
This quote struck me as counter productive to Prejan’s cause, although she reflected upon it positively in her reading, calling it a “peak experience.” Why focus on what is wrong with the death penalty, through the killing of innocents? I doubt any of those mentioned by Prejan as “pro-death penalty” believe that is right. If as a society we wish to end the death penalty, why not focus on changing our thinking of condemning those who are guilty to death? Death penalty sentencing can be changed to help innocents escape this fate, but what about those who are truly guilty? If we get rid of the death penalty without focusing on those who are guilty, then how can the argument over the death penalty really end? Although this is a harder argument to make, it would be far stronger and revolutionary if she stressed forgiveness to those who are guilty. To be clear, I am not saying that the sentencing to death of innocent people is by no way a heinous injustice, I am saying, that to truly end the death penalty, we must focus on those that are guilty and “deserve” this punishment in the eyes of people like Supreme Court Justice Scalia. The thinking that there are crimes people deserve to die for, won’t end if it’s not addressed. Why did Prejan choose to use that quote?
Sister Helen Prejean is obviously an incredible woman. The fact that she has dedicated her life to such a noble cause of exposing the truth – truth of the court systems, truth of our government, and the truths of the innocents – has continually astounded me through my reading of her story. I can only hope to find a passion such as she has, and reading this book has opened my eyes to many happenings that I never would have imagined. By reading The Death of Innocents, new doors in my mind have been opened, and ones already in existence are expanding to comprehend these facts and make sense of them. If I could ask a question of Sister Helen, well, I would probably ask her to coffee. Whilst sipping our chai teas, I would hope to freely sift through her thoughts of people, and the way that these events can affect their lives and the way that they continue on living. Not only would I wish to discuss the victims in these stories I would find myself wanting to know how this lifetime of work has affected her personally. I wonder, was she naive just as I was to the horrible lies of our government? Or did she grow up knowing of the wrongs, and wanting to set things right? How did her background in religion help appease her own mind while dealing with innocent people about to die? And when she is not out tryinhg to save our citizens, what is it that she does? Is this mission her life? Or is it merely a huge piece of a complex puzzle?
By this time I assume that our chai teas will be empty or cold, and I will therefore send her back to her adventures and struggles with our government, hoping that one day I will be by her side, saving the world in my own ways.
I would like to apologize for my mis-spelling of Prejean’s last name. I copied this from a word document (so I wouldn’t submit it with any errors, ironically) and it appears, Spell Check got the better of me.
I would ask Sister Helen how her feelings differ between the innocent and guilty members of death row. I know that she discussed it in her novel; however, this is the point that I was most fuzzy on, and the issue that I know I would have the most conflict with, personally. Thus, I would like to discuss the issue with her, as she has experience in the matter.
Throughout the book Prejean emphasizes the terrible life the prisoners on death row live (while on death row). Would living a full life in these conditions truely be preferrable to being executed? A life sentence without parole seems like it’s nearly the same sentence as a capital punishment. In both cases you are sent to prison forever, until you die. I am against the death penalty because it is unevenly distributed, costly, and immoral, but is it ever preferrable?
While I was already personally against the death penalty before reading this book I had just finished a book about psychopathy which made me wonder about some things. Obviously Sister Helen comes at things from a spiritual place as well as a more secular ethical one but for someone like me who isn’t religious I have a hard time feeling morally bad about the deaths of completely remorseless monsters who, in the case of psychopaths at least, will never change. I think that because in this country we know for a fact we’ve killed innocent people and that the cost and legal maitenence the death penalty causes are enormous versus their “benefit” it should be abolished. However, I find the spiritual argument against it not as compelling because I couldn’t help but think about what I would do if someone had raped and killed my child or how I’d feel if the killer was being executed. Basically, what I’d like to get a response from Sister Helen about is where those of us who are secular can get a concrete ethical stance that doesn’t employ spiritual metaphor.
One of Sister Helen’s arguments against the death penalty concerned humanity’s inability to weigh which crime is more atrocious than the other, due to the many biases, emotions, and passions of human nature. This ability is needed because the death penalty is reserved for the “worst of the worst” murders, and it is the duty of the jury to consider both the nature of the crime and any extenuating circumstances. While I agree that it is difficult to distinguish one type of brutal murder from another, how far does that ambiguity go? Could outlawing the death penalty using this reasoning lead to a decrease in sentences in murders and other crimes? To make the argument that humanity does not have the ability to judge the level of horror of murders can then be extrapolated to any other judgements made by juries of human behavior. My question to Sister Helen will be why should juror judgements be disregarded in trials with death penalties yet used in any other trials.
Clearly there is an abundance of interesting and stimulating questions one could ask Sister Helen Prejean, but I have several in particular that I would especially like to get answered by the author.
1. “How did you initially become involved with advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty?”
2. “If working as a spiritual advisor to death row inmates is so emotionally draining, why do you continue?” Furthermore, do you think your publications opposing the death penalty are helping to decrease the number of sentences?”
3. “What do you think of the 1995 film adaption of your book ‘Dead Man Walking’? How accurate is the story and how well do you think Susan Sarandon portrayed you?”
I woud love to ask Sister Helen the differences in her feelings and the way she deals with inmates on death row who are innocent or guilty. Are feelings of a spiritual advisor different when the inmates are innocent or guilty? Does the treatment change on an inmate to inmate basis? I could not imagine watching the executions either, I wonder how she feels watching the executions and if each one gets easier the more she sees them.
Helen Prejean cares religiously, emotionally for the prisoners on death row. Through her eyes, you learn to care for the people she meets, sympathize for them, and from 2 encounters of innocent people killed, you are energized to fight for the abolition of the death penalty. Energized to fight for the abolition of the death penalty, but with no clue how to put such hope into action.
My question for Helen Prejean is how can we “remedy”, to quote Elizabeth, the unfairness that has befallen defendants in our judicial system? Would an inquisitorial system of justice be more effective than the adversarial system we have now? While both systems have their pros and cons, to switch from one to the other would upend the years our country spent on preventing a single tyrannical abuse of power. Yes, there was a time in our legal system that the death penalty seemed to target groups of people based on ethnicity and socio-economic class, but the very structure of our courts (two sides presenting arguments to an impartial judge/jury to determine the facts of a case) implies that our system will get better over the years. The second question I would ask is if Dobie Williams and Joseph O’Dell were tried in the present day, would their outcomes remain the same?
Through the years, due process has adapted to provide numerous ways for defendants to be protected. Stanford v Kentucky (1989) prohibited the execution of mentally retarded murderers. Defendants receive pre-emptory challenges to weed out potentially biased jurors. In Griffin v. California, (1977) the Supreme Court ruled that remaining silent does not infer guilt. The point is, so many safeguards have been added to protect the innocent, that I don’t see Joseph O’Dell or Dobie Williams in the present day.
This leads me to conclude that Sister Helen Prejean’s strategy to conquer the death penalty is not to create more process in the courts, but to outlaw it entirely. The main way to do this is by constitutional amendment, which is one of the most effective ways for the present popular belief to have an effect on our country. Therefore, Prejean’s story is meant to change enough people’s minds (including those in LA and TX) and hearts that the death penalty is bad. Because of this, the religious focus she includes in this book is the best way, I believe, for her to achieve her goal.
Why do you as the author portray all prosecutors as the side that bends or breaks the rules, and portray the defense as the constant “underdog” when in fact, we have an adversarial system in which both sides MUST share evidence and all of the acts you stated prosecutors commit are also comitted by defense attorneys?
I’d like to ask how she finds the strength to fight back one’s natural human emotion. To be there and provide comfort for those condemned to death, without breaking down herself. I know that the pressure must be immense on a person, knowing that you get to walk out of there when it’s all over. I don’t know if i could hold it together. If not, then I will have done the exact opposite of comforting and terrified them in their last moments. Now, i’m not a religious person, but is that what Sister Prejean depends on for her strength? Because that is quite a feat of human spirit, and i highly admire those who are strong spiritually. I would like to ask if she gives God all of the credit for her strength, or if she believes she is a strong person without God’s help.
I’m curious to learn what her reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden was. In the book, Prejean says:
“With the qualifying criterion taken away, whom then might governments kill? Killers of police officers? Or of children? Or of a room full of people? Or a building full of people? Or…terrorists such as Osama bin Laden?
No one.”
I think what she was saying here is that the updated catechism does not approve of the execution of anyone, no matter how awful their crimes are, but she wrote this before bin Laden’s death, so I wonder what her reaction was, especially since his death was generally seen as a great thing. I’m sure she didn’t approve of the national reaction, with crowds shouting “USA! USA!” But if she protests his death, that probably won’t be received too well by a lot of Americans…
I plan on asking her how she kept doing what she did thorugh the years. I’m amazed at her compassion, and her ability to become so close to someone she knew would be killed.
I would like to know what she thinks about WHY so many people support capital punishment and WHY people, like those described in her book, go to such lengths to carry out these death sentences. I feel like someone with her life experiences would know a great deal about human nature and certain instincts in people that cause us to act in such immoral ways. Also, I wonder if she believes people are inherently good or inherently evil. Personally, I think people are good, but I have not witnessed much evil in the world, so I have a somewhat limited perspective. It seems to me that if people are inherently good, then there must be specific reasons/causes of why such atrocities occur. If the causes of these atrocities could be identified and solved then maybe there would be less evil in the world. However, if people are evil, there’s not really a whole lot that could be done.
I would like to learn more about Prejean’s stance on separation of church and state. With Justice Scalia’s hypocrisy on the death penalty based on his religious beliefs, is it possible to have complete separation in the government? Or will religion always play a role in the minds of those in power?
I would really like to ask her why she choose the two cases about Dobbie and O’Dell. Both are compelling against the death penalty, however what I found more concerning were the other issues that were brought up such as corruption in the government and the court system (which I see to be the real problem) due to prejudices. Wouldn’t it have been better to choose cases where there weren’t as many other factors to distract from her main point? Maybe a case where someone was given a fair trial and was still convicted of a crime of which they were innocent. While I would agree that they definitely show cases where capital punishment is wrongly dealt, I feel that they really deal with other issues that go beyond capital punishment.
In the book, there was some serious doubt as to whether Dobbie and O’Dell were truly guilty. I would like to ask Sister Helen if her job as a spiritual adviser to these death row inmates is any different, perhaps more challenging, when she is dealing with a prisoner who is, without a doubt, guilty of his/her crimes. Does she feel the same compassion for these inmates as she does for those whose guilt is questionable?
Sister Prejean was once asked in an interview, “If we could tell for sure who was guilty, would it be O.K.?” She responded by saying, “It isn’t and never will be because of what it does to us. There’s a death of innocence in all of us. Look what happens to Supreme Court Justices who do these nuanced constitutional arguments and send people to their deaths and never touch the human cheek, the suffering. So I say, for our own sake as a society, let’s take death off the table. We can’t handle it.”
She firmly believes that regardless of the magnitude of the crime, one should not be executed. According to her, it is torture, and does not bring justice to anyone. What then if there was justification to subject a human to “torture”. This is my question to her: “In your book, one of your primary cases against capital punishment was by saying that it was torture to execute a man, regardless of his innocence. In the case of capital punishment, a man’s death is the supposed justice to a crime that he has (or may have) already committed. What is your opinion on excercising torture to prevent a crime from being committed to begin with? To be more candid, should the government be able to torture someone such as a terrorist in order to prevent an inexcusable tragedy from occuring?”
Similar to Robert H’s comment, I am truly interested in how Sister Helen detaches or controls her emotions when watching prisoners on death row, especially during family visits. I wonder if it is a constant battle to suppress emotions or emotionally detach, thus enabling her to avoid being overcome with anger, sadness, or anxiety. Or is it that when she accompanies and counsels prisoners she’s learned to reach a state that separates judgement and thought processes from chemical emotions, similar to what is achieved through meditation but without the formalities involved? A state that isn’t unhealthily suppressing or ignoring the body’s natural response to such situations. I ask this because merely fighting one’s emotions may work in the present or short-term but unless the emotions are addressed in another way I believe it would be inevitable for a human being to experience a major breakdown, if not multiple.
A followup question to my first is if Sister Helen has had emotional breakdowns whether it is overwhelming sadness and grief or utter outrage towards those who were directly involved in the practices of what Sister Helen believes is torture?
I couldn’t see where I could edit my post so this is just to add onto my last question. I wanted to provide textual support for my statement regarding Sister Helen’s belief and interpretation of the death penalty. She labels capital punishment as, “torturous deaths of fellow human beings,” (109).
This may sound awful but at some point she mentions just wanting to go home and have time to herself, being away from the jails and the people involved, and to me it almost sounded like a “hidden” relief to finally have it behind her. Is there a certain relief for her in the death of any death row inmates, just as the inmates express relief that the waiting is over? Once the decision has been made that they will be executed the only thing to do is wait, and to me that wait would be the worst, and most “relieving” (albeit tragic) when it was over.
She does not address the needs of the victim and their family very persistently, and I can understand that because it is so very difficult to help someone who in so much pain, however, I feel that spiritually, counsel of the victim is in need of the most improvement. So first, what kind of counsel and services can we give the victims family, spiritually and psychologically, that will give them closure on a case without the retribution of an ‘eye for an eye’? Does she believe it possible for the victims and the accused to reconcile themselvs to some form of forgiveness and mercy?
Then on a national scale, the mutual feeling of victimization has led us to the most extreme politics, a policy of these politics being capital punishment, so I ask, what is needed for a national healing? What counsel is needed in America to help people forgive others of even the most heinous crimes? How can we teach people to not simply point the finger at others when they are in pain, but to tell their story and to dedicate their lives to helping ‘stop a crime before it happens’?
In her mind, what is the most influential factor in making a killer, and how can we as a community work to help these people to not make that very fatal decision?
The issue of the correlation between the religious “Bible Belt” and the highest rates of executions disturbed me. I’m not a religious person, and I’m wondering whether Sister Helen thinks that there is a reason for this correlation. I’m not trying to offend, rather I’m asking a legitimate question to any of you who might have insight into this question. Justice Scalia is quoted in the book as having said “To Christians, death is no big deal.” But isn’t that a legitimate point? While I’m not religious, I studied religion in school. If the people convicted of terrible crimes are indeed innocent, then doesn’t the Catholic belief of a heavenly eternity await them? Isn’t it one of the most basic points of Christianity that, no matter what is suffered in the mortal world, true justice will be dealt in the afterlife? While most of the things I learned about Justice Scalia deeply disturbed me, I think he may have had a point when he said that death was “no big deal” for Christians. This is where I think the purely religious argument falls through. In the face of an eternity of blissful paradise, aren’t earthy sufferings just a farce? It only follows that indeed they would be. How would a religious woman overcome this paradox?
Again, I am not trying to be offensive, and I agree with Sister Helen on her views on the death penalty. I think it’s an awful construct that should be abolished. However, I’m truly interested to hear both your thoughts and hers on this particular subject.
Just for the sake of bringing up a new side of the arguement; what would her response be towards someone who IS proven guilty, where there is absolutely no doubt upon conviction? I see that some people have posted about Osama Bin Laden. Let’s say that someone of his caliber was arrested and tried on American soil. Would she prefer to have him simply spend life in prison?
I’m not going to get into my stance on the death penalty at this point, but I would like to bring up the economic side. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain the life of someone is prison. If someone is being held captive until death, is that not the same as slowly killing someone? I realize it is not murder in the sense that you are simply waiting until the person as passed away. Having said this, it is cheaper to put someone to death than to support them until their death day.
If the court has decided that someone no longer has the right to live among the people of the world, do we use tax-payers money to support the life of someone who has taken so many other lives? Or do we condemn them to their own death? I’m interested to see what you guys think.
Maddie, I also found the fact that she used Osama bin Laden’s name in the list of people who don’t deserve the death penalty interesting. I just wonder if she views his death differently, because it wasn’t necessarily capital punishment brought on by the US court system, but a military killing?
I want to ask her how she found the strength to decide to fight such a huge system. I don’t know if I would have made the same decision, I may have felt the fight was lost before it began. I also wonder if she feels how big of an impact she’s made.
My Questions for Sister Helen:
1. Sister Helen is critical of the judicial system and how it unjustly incarcerates and kills innocent people. I would like to know how she proposes we remedy this problem of unfairness in the Court.
2. Given her experience with the law/Court, I would like to ask Sister Helen if she thinks it is realistically possible to achieve her goal (ending the death penalty) within her lifetime.
3. I would like to know her response(s) to people who favor capital punishment instead of life in prison due to the costs involved. For example, in 2001 it cost $22,632 to incarcerate an inmate for one year. In 2005 this number increased to an average of $23,876. With the number of prisoners in the United States multiplied by several years (if not life) in prison this adds up to billions of dollars being spent. Abolishment of the death penalty would mean an increased financial burden for taxpayers. I would like to know what her fiscal solution is to this burden.
4. I would like to know what Sister Helen has learned from her life so far and all the memorable experiences she has gone through. Specifically I am curious to know what she has learned about herself and the human spirit.
1. I would ask Sister Helen about the current status of Lori Urs O’Dell. I am fascinated by Lori’s relationship with Joseph O’Dell… I would love to know more about what Sister Helen thinks about the marriage and the lasting effects of the relationship on Lori through Helen’s eyes.
2. Like Elizabeth P. I have been wondering about what Sister Hellen thinks about the extremely high costs of keeping prisoners detained for life verses capital punishment which would relieve a large financial burden for taxpayers. Are there alternative solutions?
I would like to ask Sister Helen Prejean how she mentally and emotionally deals with everything that she has come across while being the spiritual advisor for various people that have been executed? She has obviously dealt with extreme sadness after these people have been killed in front of her eyes, frustration that the justice system continues to kill innocent people, and many other thoughts and emotions that I cannot even imagine. I don’t know anyone that has the strength and willpower to do what Sister Helen does and think that she is an amazing woman for doing what she does.
In response to Elizabeth P.’s (above) second question I would like to say that I was thinking the same thing as she is. Does Sister Helen think that she can make enough of an impact with the help of others to put an end to the death penalty? Also, what can young college students such as ourselves do to promote the issue of innocent people being executed and help create awareness about the flaws in the justice system?
I had wanted to ask her the same thing, Audrey. She is so full of passion for this issue and compassion for those on death row. How does she deal with the injustice that surrounds her? If I were to put myself in her shoes, I would be frustrated. How does she draw upon Christ’s forgiveness for the judges and politicians who authorize the death penalty without thinking twice about what they are doing?
I would like to ask her to explain her opinion of the purpose of the prison system and the death sentence. Because, to me, it seems they are intended to punish criminals rather than teach them and provide them skills to be re-integrated into society. It seems that once someone is sentenced to prison, they will continuously be in a cycle of being released and re-incarcerated for the rest of their life or until their crimes progress to demanding a life sentence or death penalty.
As Edward stated, I would also like to know Sister Prejean’s opinion about the separation of church and state, especially as it applies to the death penalty. Prejean spends a large amount of time in the book discussing the Catholic population’s journey from staunch support of the death penalty to questioning it’s moral coordiance with Catholic beliefs such as love and compassion for all people. Mostly notably, Prejean describes the shift in views of the Pope, who ends up rewriting Catholic teaching on the death penalty, and notes this as a triumph in seeking the eradification of the death penalty. But should the opinion of a religious sect really have an effect on the way our judicial system functions?
Further, Justice Scalia’s citation of chapter 13 (Paul’s Epistle to the Romans) as justification for carrying out the death penalty was astounding to me. How can it be acceptable for a judge, as a representative of a supposedly secular government, to openly denote religious text to make his case? Even more shocking to me was Scalia’s denunciation of democracy, the very system under which he was elected, by stating that it was “difficult to see hand of God or of any higher moral authority behind the fools and rogues – as the losers would have it – whom we ourselves elect to do our own will”. I would like to know how Sister Prejean feels about the inclusion of religious views in legal jurisdiction; is this ever okay?
I would also like to ask her if she could imagine herself fighting for any other causes. And how she knew that captial punishment was the issue that God intended her to be involved in.
Like Joy, I’d like to ask Sister Helen how she controls her emotions. When being interviewed about Bush’s hypocrisy in asking God (to) bless Karla Faye, she writes: “I had to struggle mightily to keep a vow I made to reverence every person, even those with whom I disagree most vehemently. Inside my soul I raged at Bush’s hypocrisy”. I understand that as a nun, she is a role model to love and respect all. But she also is one of the biggest abolitionists of the death penalty – why didn’t she let people know how she truly felt about George Bush? It wouldn’t have to be rude, but neutrality can only go so far.
I’m also curious in the quality of the workplace of the prison employees (the guards, especially). In the book, she wrote that many have admitted being disturbed by their jobs, some to the point of quitting. On one hand, it’s easy to become frustrated with them for administrating the death penalty. However, they have families and lifestyles to support. Is there any way to ameliorate the killing jobs of the guards, or is there no way to better a state-ordered execution?
I want to ask Sister Helen about how/if she thinks socio-economics play a part in people’s beliefs about the death penalty and if so how she addresses this when speaking to different groups around the country. It would be interesting to see if she changes her arguments bases upon the people she is speaking to.
I was really drawn to the idea of socio-economics throughout the book. Obviously there is much evidence for lower income Americans being put to death more frequently but what really opened my eyes to the issue was when Sister Helen discussed Justice Scalia. She wrote that “Justice Scalia attends Mass in a wealthy white suburban parish and sings Latin hymns. I attend Mass in an African American church and sing spirituals” (pg. 171). And in continuation, “When Scalia sends people to their deaths, he never sees their faces. But I see their faces as they turn to look at me when they are being killed” (172). When I read this I realized how easy it is to not think about the death penalty if your life is removed from it. I have never supported the death penalty, but at the same time I never gave it a lot of thought because it never touched my life. In this way it seems to me that people like Justice Scalia who never actually feel the pain and suffering that is on both sides of the death penalty and thus it is easier for them to oppose it. I am interested to see how Sister Helen deals with the issue of talking and arguing over the death penalty with people who are removed from the actual process.
I was re-reading my post and realized that one of my sentences doesn’t make sense. It should read: “In this way it seems to me that people like Justice Scalia never actually feel the pain and suffering that is on both sides of the death penalty and thus it is easier for them to oppose it.”
I would really like to ask her how much of her aversion to the death penalty is based on her religious beliefs and how much is just her own personal convictions. I also would like to ask her about her views on our world’s decreasing resources. In her book she states that the cost of actually killing someone on death row is more expensive than giving them a life in prison but how can she justify feeding and caring for people who have killed fellow human beings? When innocent children are starving on the street and our state is paying for condemned criminals to eat full meals every day how does that even begin to be fair?
Like Matthew, I would like to ask her how she sees the torture of suspected terrorists, and what her opinion is on the subject. Many people justify such methods by saying that they prevent the deaths of others, and I think it would be interesting to hear if she believes that the ends justify the means, or if torture is abhorrent under any circumstances.
1. I want to know what she believes the role of religion in civil society should be. At one point in her book she clearly goes against the idea of a theocracy, but while she supports a secular democracy, she still tries to elicit the power of the catholic church to invoke change in public policy, and pressure those in power to shift their stances through religious morals. How do we hold in check the natural desire among those in power to dictate personal decision making by turning to their religious beliefs (What would God or Jesus want me to do?).
2. I want to know her stance on life without parole. In light of her strong beliefs on the power of a human being to redeem themselves and turn around their life (like that of Karla Faye Tucker), I would hope that she find a sentence of life without parole to be uniquely dehumanizing. Rather than allowing the convicted the opportunity to redeem themselves and be readmitted into society, they are told with a sentence of life without parole that they have no chance of being rehabilitated, and are left to waste away with no incentive to be a responsible prisoner.
3. What are her policy recommendations to ensure that indigent defender’s receive proper representation?
I actually have several questions I would like to ask Sister Helen. I really liked Elizabeth P.’s first two questions, and I’m wondering the same things. While she has shown through her book that our justice system has extraordinary flaws, how much of it does Sister Helen think can be rescued? The system is so firmly a part of our country and culture, it is difficult to imagine anything drastically different, even if it should be so. If Sister Helen were able to rework our justice system (not just involving capital crimes, but overall), what changes would she make, or would she create an entirely new system? What kinds of justice systems would these changes result in?
I am also curious as to Sister Helen’s views of religion vs. state. While our nation is supposed to have a separation of the two, she showed well how even high government officials such as Justice Scalia have inevitably brought religion and personal opinion into something that is supposed to be objective. I wonder if Sister Helen finds it appropriate that personal opinion is continually brought into government, whether she feels that it is possible to completely separate church and state (and what would have to happen to create that separation), and where she can see the positive and negative effects of religion in our not-fully-separated government?
In the “Acknowledgments” at the beginning of Death of Innocents, Sister Helen Prejan’s quotation of “chief editor Daniel Menaker” stuck with me through my reading. Menaker said, “With the publication of ‘Dead Man Walking’, we opened the national conversation about the death penalty. With ‘The Death of Innocents’, we’re going to catalyze public discourse that will end the death penalty.”
This quote struck me as counter productive to Prejan’s cause, although she reflected upon it positively in her reading, calling it a “peak experience.” Why focus on what is wrong with the death penalty, through the killing of innocents? I doubt any of those mentioned by Prejan as “pro-death penalty” believe that is right. If as a society we wish to end the death penalty, why not focus on changing our thinking of condemning those who are guilty to death? Death penalty sentencing can be changed to help innocents escape this fate, but what about those who are truly guilty? If we get rid of the death penalty without focusing on those who are guilty, then how can the argument over the death penalty really end? Although this is a harder argument to make, it would be far stronger and revolutionary if she stressed forgiveness to those who are guilty. To be clear, I am not saying that the sentencing to death of innocent people is by no way a heinous injustice, I am saying, that to truly end the death penalty, we must focus on those that are guilty and “deserve” this punishment in the eyes of people like Supreme Court Justice Scalia. The thinking that there are crimes people deserve to die for, won’t end if it’s not addressed. Why did Prejan choose to use that quote?
Sister Helen Prejean is obviously an incredible woman. The fact that she has dedicated her life to such a noble cause of exposing the truth – truth of the court systems, truth of our government, and the truths of the innocents – has continually astounded me through my reading of her story. I can only hope to find a passion such as she has, and reading this book has opened my eyes to many happenings that I never would have imagined. By reading The Death of Innocents, new doors in my mind have been opened, and ones already in existence are expanding to comprehend these facts and make sense of them. If I could ask a question of Sister Helen, well, I would probably ask her to coffee. Whilst sipping our chai teas, I would hope to freely sift through her thoughts of people, and the way that these events can affect their lives and the way that they continue on living. Not only would I wish to discuss the victims in these stories I would find myself wanting to know how this lifetime of work has affected her personally. I wonder, was she naive just as I was to the horrible lies of our government? Or did she grow up knowing of the wrongs, and wanting to set things right? How did her background in religion help appease her own mind while dealing with innocent people about to die? And when she is not out tryinhg to save our citizens, what is it that she does? Is this mission her life? Or is it merely a huge piece of a complex puzzle?
By this time I assume that our chai teas will be empty or cold, and I will therefore send her back to her adventures and struggles with our government, hoping that one day I will be by her side, saving the world in my own ways.
I would like to apologize for my mis-spelling of Prejean’s last name. I copied this from a word document (so I wouldn’t submit it with any errors, ironically) and it appears, Spell Check got the better of me.
I would ask Sister Helen how her feelings differ between the innocent and guilty members of death row. I know that she discussed it in her novel; however, this is the point that I was most fuzzy on, and the issue that I know I would have the most conflict with, personally. Thus, I would like to discuss the issue with her, as she has experience in the matter.
Throughout the book Prejean emphasizes the terrible life the prisoners on death row live (while on death row). Would living a full life in these conditions truely be preferrable to being executed? A life sentence without parole seems like it’s nearly the same sentence as a capital punishment. In both cases you are sent to prison forever, until you die. I am against the death penalty because it is unevenly distributed, costly, and immoral, but is it ever preferrable?
While I was already personally against the death penalty before reading this book I had just finished a book about psychopathy which made me wonder about some things. Obviously Sister Helen comes at things from a spiritual place as well as a more secular ethical one but for someone like me who isn’t religious I have a hard time feeling morally bad about the deaths of completely remorseless monsters who, in the case of psychopaths at least, will never change. I think that because in this country we know for a fact we’ve killed innocent people and that the cost and legal maitenence the death penalty causes are enormous versus their “benefit” it should be abolished. However, I find the spiritual argument against it not as compelling because I couldn’t help but think about what I would do if someone had raped and killed my child or how I’d feel if the killer was being executed. Basically, what I’d like to get a response from Sister Helen about is where those of us who are secular can get a concrete ethical stance that doesn’t employ spiritual metaphor.
One of Sister Helen’s arguments against the death penalty concerned humanity’s inability to weigh which crime is more atrocious than the other, due to the many biases, emotions, and passions of human nature. This ability is needed because the death penalty is reserved for the “worst of the worst” murders, and it is the duty of the jury to consider both the nature of the crime and any extenuating circumstances. While I agree that it is difficult to distinguish one type of brutal murder from another, how far does that ambiguity go? Could outlawing the death penalty using this reasoning lead to a decrease in sentences in murders and other crimes? To make the argument that humanity does not have the ability to judge the level of horror of murders can then be extrapolated to any other judgements made by juries of human behavior. My question to Sister Helen will be why should juror judgements be disregarded in trials with death penalties yet used in any other trials.
Clearly there is an abundance of interesting and stimulating questions one could ask Sister Helen Prejean, but I have several in particular that I would especially like to get answered by the author.
1. “How did you initially become involved with advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty?”
2. “If working as a spiritual advisor to death row inmates is so emotionally draining, why do you continue?” Furthermore, do you think your publications opposing the death penalty are helping to decrease the number of sentences?”
3. “What do you think of the 1995 film adaption of your book ‘Dead Man Walking’? How accurate is the story and how well do you think Susan Sarandon portrayed you?”
I woud love to ask Sister Helen the differences in her feelings and the way she deals with inmates on death row who are innocent or guilty. Are feelings of a spiritual advisor different when the inmates are innocent or guilty? Does the treatment change on an inmate to inmate basis? I could not imagine watching the executions either, I wonder how she feels watching the executions and if each one gets easier the more she sees them.
Helen Prejean cares religiously, emotionally for the prisoners on death row. Through her eyes, you learn to care for the people she meets, sympathize for them, and from 2 encounters of innocent people killed, you are energized to fight for the abolition of the death penalty. Energized to fight for the abolition of the death penalty, but with no clue how to put such hope into action.
My question for Helen Prejean is how can we “remedy”, to quote Elizabeth, the unfairness that has befallen defendants in our judicial system? Would an inquisitorial system of justice be more effective than the adversarial system we have now? While both systems have their pros and cons, to switch from one to the other would upend the years our country spent on preventing a single tyrannical abuse of power. Yes, there was a time in our legal system that the death penalty seemed to target groups of people based on ethnicity and socio-economic class, but the very structure of our courts (two sides presenting arguments to an impartial judge/jury to determine the facts of a case) implies that our system will get better over the years. The second question I would ask is if Dobie Williams and Joseph O’Dell were tried in the present day, would their outcomes remain the same?
Through the years, due process has adapted to provide numerous ways for defendants to be protected. Stanford v Kentucky (1989) prohibited the execution of mentally retarded murderers. Defendants receive pre-emptory challenges to weed out potentially biased jurors. In Griffin v. California, (1977) the Supreme Court ruled that remaining silent does not infer guilt. The point is, so many safeguards have been added to protect the innocent, that I don’t see Joseph O’Dell or Dobie Williams in the present day.
This leads me to conclude that Sister Helen Prejean’s strategy to conquer the death penalty is not to create more process in the courts, but to outlaw it entirely. The main way to do this is by constitutional amendment, which is one of the most effective ways for the present popular belief to have an effect on our country. Therefore, Prejean’s story is meant to change enough people’s minds (including those in LA and TX) and hearts that the death penalty is bad. Because of this, the religious focus she includes in this book is the best way, I believe, for her to achieve her goal.