Over 100 students joined CHC and Inside-Out Prison Exchange alumna Katie Dwyer for a live discussion of the Common Reading and its themes of incarceration, capital punishment, and social justice
Please add your own questions to those listed below, which we will be discussing on Wednesday, September 21 at 1:30 in the LLC Performance Hall:
1) Although Sister Helen signs the witness agreement at Dobie’s execution, she protests that “In no way do I give my consent to this killing.” Is Sister Helen’s objection effective? In what ways do we, as citizens, give consent to state executions?
2) Sister Helen quotes Dorothy Day in saying, “We have to build a society in which it is easier for people to be good.” After reading The Death of Innocents, what ideas do you have about how we might build such a society? How might the justice system make it easier for people to be good?
In the section of the book involving Mr. O’dell, Prejean speaks largely about the Pope’s opinion of the death penalty in order to sway southern politicians. Does this tactic prove that there needs to be a further separation of church and state, as one’s religious affiliation should not interfere with their interpretation of the law?
In the book, Prejean speaks about how governors pride themselves on death penalty kill counts. Should the matter of the death penalty be handed over to the government, rather than the states?
There is no question that the death penalty in America is filled with inequity, namely racial, social, geographic, and economic unfairness (not to mention the death of innocent people). Also, the way the system determines who receives the death penalty and who is saved seems arbitrary. Our society is a system of incentives and punishments designed to mold our citizens into productive, law-abiding people. Injustices aside, what are the objective statistics on homicide/crime rates with and without the death penalty?
On one hand the use of first-person narration by a strong anti-death penalty activist evokes an emotional response by the reader for an issue that many Americans feel apathy toward (the death penalty). On the other hand, this first-person narration adds a high degree of personal bias, which might make the reader feel overly directed. Do you think the stylistic device of first-person narration was the best choice for Prejean’s book?
Prejean brings up how adolescent murderers often have rough childhoods that cause their homicidal ways. Does anyone else feel like that is not an excuse to kill people? For someone that continuously preaches about how “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” I find it interesting how she has a double standard for children. The fact that they had a rough childhood does not mean they should contaminate the planet with killing sprees. Should murderous children be exempt from punishment because they do not know any better?
What standards are we operating by in our Justice system? Do we seek to support societal conventions? What role does religion play?
In the section of the book involving Mr. O’dell, Prejean speaks largely about the Pope’s opinion of the death penalty in order to sway southern politicians. Does this tactic prove that there needs to be a further separation of church and state, as one’s religious affiliation should not interfere with their interpretation of the law?
In the book, Prejean speaks about how governors pride themselves on death penalty kill counts. Should the matter of the death penalty be handed over to the government, rather than the states?
There is no question that the death penalty in America is filled with inequity, namely racial, social, geographic, and economic unfairness (not to mention the death of innocent people). Also, the way the system determines who receives the death penalty and who is saved seems arbitrary. Our society is a system of incentives and punishments designed to mold our citizens into productive, law-abiding people. Injustices aside, what are the objective statistics on homicide/crime rates with and without the death penalty?
On one hand the use of first-person narration by a strong anti-death penalty activist evokes an emotional response by the reader for an issue that many Americans feel apathy toward (the death penalty). On the other hand, this first-person narration adds a high degree of personal bias, which might make the reader feel overly directed. Do you think the stylistic device of first-person narration was the best choice for Prejean’s book?
Prejean brings up how adolescent murderers often have rough childhoods that cause their homicidal ways. Does anyone else feel like that is not an excuse to kill people? For someone that continuously preaches about how “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” I find it interesting how she has a double standard for children. The fact that they had a rough childhood does not mean they should contaminate the planet with killing sprees. Should murderous children be exempt from punishment because they do not know any better?