Chapter 1359 1359 Moral High Point

Roger Ebert discussed "Death Row" in depth in this film review. Obviously, he has countless ideas to express and discuss the core idea of ​​​​the whole story. After analyzing the role of Matthew, he He also briefly expressed his views on the death penalty.

"In the movie, the lawyer mentioned a point that with the continuous development of human civilization, the way of execution of the death penalty has also developed from cruel to humane, which shows that the law is constantly improving and making compromises in safeguarding human rights and dignity. ; The scope of application of the death penalty is also gradually shrinking, which shows that human beings' understanding of the value of life is constantly being refreshed.

However, the debate over whether the death penalty should be abolished has continued, and even in the upcoming election year, the issue of the death penalty remains a focus. In this work, Tim Robbins did not express his views simply and rudely. On the contrary, he only showed the complexity of the death penalty issue from the standpoint of a bystander.

As the guards say in the movie, 'It's easy to comment on the extent of the execution. What seems unreasonable or unnecessary on the surface actually has deep theory and long-term experience. 'Perhaps, this is the core idea that Tim wants to express: there will always be differences in outlook on life, values ​​and world outlook under a legal system. The system cannot satisfy everyone's understanding of life, but it is accompanied by history. progress and continuous improvement.

Therefore, whether the death penalty will be abolished in the future is still a point of contention. "Death Walk" is just one of the ordinary and extraordinary cases.

The point of view of the film can be divided into three angles, the first is the victim's family and bystanders; the second is Matthew and Matthew's family; the third is Sister Helen.

In the film, it is clear that the people who support the death penalty are ordinary people represented by the victims Walter and Hope. Multiple details in the film show this, with photos of the victim's grief in the local newspaper under the headline 'Parent's grief never ends'; He had been opposed to the death penalty until his mouth was recorded to confirm the teeth of the deceased, but after that day, he fully supported the death penalty.

Including those ordinary people who rejected Matthew, his family, and the lawyers and nuns who helped Matthew, their attitude towards the death penalty is undoubtedly simple and clear: that is a demon, and he should pay the price, life for life.

But for Matthew, before he pleaded guilty, the death penalty had no punitive effect on him, because he didn't think he should be sentenced to death at all. It was not until he regained his dignity that he faced the death penalty calmly, including the death penalty. Fear and comfort to family members. But even though Matthew is a vicious murderer, his family is innocent. For them, like Walter and Hope's family, they have to lose their loved ones.

The confrontation between these two angles is also the biggest contradiction in the movie. When someone kills their close relative, all we can think of is revenge, and we hope to see the murderer pay the corresponding punishment-life, even at the expense of violating the law. solve each other. But when a life ends, can you really let yourself go? Does watching someone's eyes slowly close in front of you can really calm you down?

The mood of the film has been hesitating back and forth on this paradoxical point, and when the story ends, everyone participates in the ceremony of Matthew's execution like a feast, for some it is numb, and for some people come Said it was fun again. But when the audience saw Hugo Lancaster's amber, hopeless, help-seeking eyes, it was hard for the audience to remain silent, just hoping to give him a chance to survive, even if it was just to let him live, life imprisonment. But in the blink of an eye, the movie presented the process of Matthew's murder in a real and cold way. The blood was cruel and without any temperature. When the eyes finally stopped on the victim's parents, it made the audience feel ashamed for their tears.

It's a mixed bag of bad ideas, and audiences don't want Matthew to die, but there's no reason he deserves to live on either. As Matthew slowly closed his eyes and died in a slow and peaceful cruelty, the victim's family looked very mixed, because they knew that Matthew's death would not bring their children back to life. And for Matthew's mother, she didn't have a son either.

Such contradictory viewpoints eventually condense to the third point of view, Sister Helen, which also becomes the focus of the entire film.

As a religious believer, Helen's view of the death penalty is blurred in this film. She is simply defending the dignity of life. What she focuses on is how Matthew can achieve the dignity of life, not that Matthew deserves to be punishable by death. In Helen's concept, God loves everyone, even if the other party is a death row, even if the other party is a cold-blooded murderer, there is something precious in their hearts, so everyone deserves to be respected and listened to. So Helen chose to help Matthew, even though she wasn't sure if Matthew was really innocent because it didn't matter to her.

But Helen's point of view is difficult to be understood by the world. Is a murderer like Matthew really human? It should be a beast! They are not worthy of God's mercy at all! This also caused Helen to fall into self-doubt.

When Helen confronted the victim's family, they asked, 'Why do you worry about the criminal without thinking that maybe we need you? ' Facing such doubts, Helen was suffering, struggling, and even more puzzled, especially after she discovered Matthew's racism and other characteristics, she began to doubt herself. But Helen bravely walked into the victim's family and listened to their feelings, but was misunderstood that she changed her attitude and turned to support the victim's side. When the victim's family found out that this was not the case, Helen's situation was even worse.

This is a very real problem. In the face of many problems, we always look at it simply as 'right or wrong'. It seems that it is either black or white, good or evil, and rudely ignores the hidden possibilities behind things. , just looking coldly at the plight of others with the eyes of a bystander.

Because of a murder, Matthew has actually been deprived of all rights by most people-even if the law protects his basic human rights, people will think that he does not deserve to live, he does not deserve to communicate with people, he Not worthy of the lawyer's help, it's weird for anyone to help him - either go to hell, or get used, or have a problem with their brains, they'll all be drawn into Matthew's line, and they'll be outraged by the outraged masses Doubt and contempt.

This is the quintessential moral high ground. Because people simply don't realize whether there is a story behind Matthew, whether Matthew's family is innocent, and whether those who help Matthew have any secrets, people just stand on the moral high ground and accuse the 'murderer' to show own justice.

But this is obviously ridiculous.

What if Matthew was wronged? Then people will call for procedural justice and someone to help him; but if Matthew is really guilty, then people will hysterically shout and kill, even if the other party makes a reasonable defense according to the procedure, people will die of patience. At this time, the public's psychology is often, 'the legal process is all manipulated, I just hope this devil will quickly subdue the law'.

But people don't have the real patience to find out the truth: is it wrong? Is there a truth behind the sin? What is the source of the murderer's crime? People simply do not realize that their indifference and impatience, their indifference, may well be one of the sources of crime. Or, people are refusing to realize it.

That's what makes Helen great. Helen understands the anger of the victim's family, but she insists on some bottom line amid the emotional outrage: Human dignity is inviolable. Helen also condemned Matthew's crime and refuted Matthew's sophistry, but she also appeased Matthew's heart, made Matthew confess the crime, and finally walked down the Yellow Spring Road calmly. Let the punishment represented by the "death penalty" really have meaning.

Should the death penalty really exist?

The collision of these three viewpoints still does not give an answer. The law of course needs to be rational and humane, but as a system, the law cannot pay attention to the feelings of specific individuals, because it must maintain consistency. Most people under the rule of law have no way to rationally discuss and criticize events, and there is no way to judge whether the behavior of the parties is rational and dignified, which is the meaning of the existence of law.

The law constrains the minds of the public. As a tool for realizing justice, the core proposition of the law is whether justice has been served, but the way of doing so is a subjective proposition. This proposition cannot be separated from the existence and feelings of individuals, and these are often determines the limits of thinking.

However, the film still proposes a direction for rational thinking about the death penalty that goes beyond discrimination, prejudice and hatred, that is, Matthew's last words before execution, 'No matter who it is, it is wrong to kill. Whether it's me, you, or the government...'

Indeed, killing is wrong, and no one has the right to end a life. Fighting anger with anger, fighting violence with violence, and dying with life are all trampling on life. Especially deliberate murders.

Our attitude towards death is the mirror that reflects our hearts, and Helen made the best interpretation with love and perseverance. After all this was over, Helen went back to work, and she saw the words written on the walls by the children, 'We love you, Sister Helen', and it was enough to keep her fighting for the rest of her life. Humanity may be elevated, and we too may be saved. This is the answer to the question 'Death Ramble' posed to the 'Seven Deadly Sins'.

Calm down and savor the 'death row walk' carefully, this is the biggest gain of this movie. Maybe you, maybe me, maybe they will have different ideas. "