Pajiba

The Green Mile is all I got.
John Coffey looked forward to his ending.

Spoilers of In Cold Blood below:

I guess this doesn't exactly answer your question, but In Cold Blood, the book at least, details the murder of a family and gives an intimate portrait of their character, but then kind of humanizes the murderers as well. Capote did a good job of making me feel some kind of sympathy for two cold-blooded killers, so when they're hung at the end, it's all just really sad, rather than some kind of Hollywood sense of justice with music swelling in the background. I'm a fan of moral greyness.

It may not be an actual film, but every time I see any Biography channel or A&E episode devoted to Charles Manson I just wish they would have fried his ass years ago. They have the full story about the LaBianca and Sharon Tate murders, the excerpt from the most recent interview with Charlie because you know he is so fascinating and has grown so much as a person. Then, at the end they have in bold letters...
Charles Manson is up for parole again in 2015. He feels positive about his chancesfor release.
Really? You do?
Just to never have to see that shit again, I would have him done away with.

The worst? The Life of David Gale. Unconvincing, preachy, convoluted junk.

An interesting thing about Dead Man Walking, which I thought was great: a pro-death penalty friend of mine saw the final scenes completely differently from how I saw it. The side-by-side presentation of the of Poncelet's execution and of his murder of his victims to my friend showed how much more humane Poncelet's execution was compared to the original murders, whereas I saw the film as equating the two (i.e., murder is murder, killing is killing).

Best I can come up with is the 1970s movie about the trial of Eichmann which never for a second lets you feel sympathy for the man and therefore lulls you into thinking he gets what he deserves (which one could argue he does but as committed death penalty opponent I don't believe in making exceptions).

There's also a made-for-TV movie about Ted Bundy that seems to revel in his execution. It portrays the sorority girls dancing and cheering as a good thing.

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

Paddy, is that the one with Mark Harmon? Yup, Bundy was a prick.

As for The Green Mile.....Coffey wanted his pain to end, but you loved him so much by that point....it was awful.

What about O Brother Where Art Thou? George "Babyface" Nelson seems quite happy about his impending doom. "Their gonna set me off like a roman candle!"

Yes, dammitjanet. It was Mark Harmon (one of my all-time crushes). Bundy was a total psychopath but I simply don't think one can object to the death penalty but then start making exceptions based on degree of perceived evilness. If one accepts that it's wrong to intentionally kill a human being, then that has to extend to the court room.

Kind of a stretch, but Clockwork Orange? I mean, the "rehabilitation" was obviously a bad choice and in the end, what did it accomplish? I don't believe Alex was on death row or anything in the movie, but in my opinion, the movie had a very negative view of rehabilitation and instead cast the "law and order" philosophy of criminal justice (which includes the death penalty) in a better light. But I was really disgusted by the movie (which was probably the point), so I probably missed most of the real message.

I'm a criminal justice dweeb.

Angels With Dirty Faces

Aside from the amazing ending, it is inferred that society thought the punishment was just.
On the other hand, they do make the protagonist a little sympathetic. Not much, but a little.

@ klingonfree:

I'm interested in your change of heart. What keeps me from whole-heartedly loving the death penalty (Mike B + DP = 4EVA!!!) is the tiny tickle at the back of my head that it's a flawed system. If I could be guaranteed that only 100% guilty individuals were going to be executed, and that the accused's race or socioeconomic background wouldn't help or hinder his case, then I might be harder pressed to remain opposed.

Also: we can't even trust government to tax us appropriately or repair our highways in a timely and efficient manner. Do we really want it involved in the absolute final form of punishment?

And finally, here's my rule for executions: The jury who voted for the death penalty have to be present at the execution.

Night of the Hunter - Everyone seems pretty happy when they drag Harry Powell off to be hanged.

"And finally, here's my rule for executions: The jury who voted for the death penalty have to be present at the execution."

I completely agree with you. I would not give up my DP book editing experience for anything. It was so significant to me to get a stark picture of what they all go through: The nurses, the prison guards, the people actually administrating it (attending physicians, official witnesses, etc). It's ... important. I am uncharacteristically at a loss for a word better than that. Grave. There. That might be it.

My strong feelings are not of the knee-jerk "Fuckin kill em!" type. It's more of the Grave Matter type. I have seen NO movie that explores it sufficiently (in my opinion and experience).

I feel it more in shades of gray than in black and white, I guess.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly could be seen as pro-death penalty, though that's not the thrust of the movie.

Three legal hangings are shown, and in each one the list of the crimes committed by the prisoner is astonishingly long. While we love Tuco and don't want him to die, we're forced to weigh the good with the evil.

The movie doesn't do the same for Shorty, though. After all, the only thing we know about Shorty is his list of crimes. If we feel that it's wrong for Tuco to allow Shorty to be killed, that's in opposition to the screenwriters' attempts to make us love Tuco despite his flaws. On the other hand, if we think to ourselves, well, clearly Shorty deserved to die anyway (hello, list of crimes AND state-sponsored execution), then we don't really hold it against Tuco.

Blondie doesn't hold it against Tuco; certainly he's got more personal reasons to be angry, but he never brings up Shorty again. The whole affair is dismissed as though to say, Eh, well, you takes yer chances. If he didn't have it coming, he wouldn't've been playing the game anyway.

Pro-death penalty? I'd say yes.

Angels with Dirty Faces!

It exemplifies the belief in a deterrent effect!

Monster?

The Crucible? The death penalty was the only escape for the honest and innocent to meet their maker without having "saved" themselves by tainting their souls with lies.

I wouldn't call The Ox-Bow Incident (book or film) pro-death penalty. I think it makes it pretty clear that the vigilantes were wrong; although not necessarily wrong in the principle that actual murderers deserve to be executed..

I've never seen a film version of it, but the book The Virginian certainly has a pro-death penalty, pro-vigilante section.

Again, an indirect connection to the pro side, but High Noon.

If I recall, the antagonist was supposed to hang but instead was released on technicality, leading to the showdown.

Law & Order comes down pretty evenly. And I don't remember much of Monster's Ball (saw it in the theater, but not since) - but wasn't that fairly even-handed on the subject?

As for the jury having to attend the execution...I think the jury on any death penalty case already has had enough trauma to deal with. Remember, these are random people picked to have to watch video, examine photos and hear stories about truly horrific crimes - I don't think they take the responsibility lightly, and I think watching the execution is an additional burden to bear.

I can't think of any movies that haven't already been mentioned, but didn't Oz cover the different sides? It's been too long since I watched that show.

Charles Manson is up for parole again in 2015

Posted by: daria at January 6, 2011 2:28 PM

I read that it will be in 2012.

Look on the bright side, if the crimes were committed in Canada, he would have been released in the mid-nineteen-nineties. Apparently we just like to slap serial killers and mass murderers on the wrist. I'm not for the death penalty; I just wish that life sentences were actually for life.

I was thinking more along the lines of Gilbert Paul Jordan, but point taken.

Ranylt, if I may add to the discussion:
I'm not sure if there are, or can be, any pro-DP movies in that I think the pro-position is usually approached differently in film. I’m generalizing, but the pro-DP film is more likely constructed with black-and-white plot & characterizations and an assumption of the infallibility of the system and morality of the ‘state’, as opposed to the black-GRAY-white portrayals of blatant injustices or ambiguities of plot/characterizations of distinctly anti-DP films or films that intend to raise questions or make the viewer less than comfortable. The movies are, by nature, constructed differently”: the pro-DP film, in general, is usually just pro-justification for the existence of the DP. The anti-DP film exists to be directly anti-DP and to illustrate. in a character or case study, how all involved (including society) are harmed by its existence. Examples of the pro-DP film:

-The capital crime is often committed on-screen. Usually no question arises about the identity of the killer, the violence, premeditation or senselessness of the act. An accessory to the act is often portrayed as someone who could have stopped the event but did not out of some fatal weakness of character.

-The trial process onscreen takes for granted the process was fair and impartial, adjudicated within the law, and the jury decided guilt and punishment according to the law. Usually the audience is not troubled with issues of process, fairness, evidence. Indeed, the audience is usually not shown the actual jury in action onscreen or the trial segment is presented perfunctorily. Often, the trial segment is at the end the film/TV show after the bad guys are caught.

-The trial, determination of guilt and prescribed punishment are legal (ie, state killing is legal) therefore the DP is justified in and of itself. Such films could be called pro-DP because they do not have a plot device that shines any light on unfairness, questionable evidence/witnesses; judicial misconduct; or mitigating circumstances or motives. No higher moral questions, gray areas or ambiguities are presented or entertained, so it is usually the viewer who is left to ponder moral objection to the DP. It is the state's right to take life, by gum, even with ample evidence that society/judiciary at all levels and stages of the process cannot (and has not) adjudicate with fairness or without error.

The raison d’etre of so-called anti-DP movies is usually, as a matter or plot and/or characterizations, to address the gray issues, and larger social issues such as the inherent and demonstrated capacity for error, misconduct, and callousness.

Some movie/TV examples of 'pro-DP' position include:

-I Want to Live (Susan Hayward). Based on true story, the condemned woman is tried and convicted in pre-trial publicity, with the blessing of the judicial system. Although she was not the killer, and, likely did not intend it to happen, she was ‘rightly’ convicted/condemned because felony-murder is in the law and DP is prescribed for that conviction as if she committed the actual crime. .

-THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE (in this movie, the main character was wrongly convicted and is on the way to the death chamber at the end, but justification is implied: well heck, he was wrongly convicted of murdering his co-conspirator in what was actually an auto accident, but both he and she both premeditated and killed her husband, the real crime he got away with, he deserved the DP anyway. No moral ambiguity is demonstrated.

-PORTRAIT OF JENNY (an episode of The Naked City, with William Shatner, Paul Burke). The detective is morally troubled and wants there to be absolutely no doubt about the suspect being the killer and the murder a capital crime. But he is only certain, having no moral issues, when the mentally disturbed killer confesses, in a flash of reality, to killing and then painting the beautiful & sensitive portrait of his wife AFTER he killed her. No issues presented. No explanation for the killing (?delusional).

-HOODLUM PRIEST (Don Murray, Keir Dullea). Harrowing ending.

-Someone mentioned the TV movie about Ted Bundy (Mark Harmon). Best example of the black/white presentation, trail as matter of course after he is caught, prescribed punishment is justified and the climax of the film. There is no gray, and even if so, the staunchest anti-DP person might not have any problem with the inevitable outcome.

PIERREPOINT is an exceptional movie, phenomenal performance by Timothy Spall, not to be missed. Its focus on the executioner separates it from simple classification as anti- or pro-DP

DANCE WITH A STRANGER and DANCER IN THE DARK have similarity in condemned single mother of small child.

Off or on screen, it seems as if the legal/prosecution character position is that guilty or not, contradictory evidence or not (even if evidence is PROVEN to be exculpatory), actual killer or not (ie, killers get life but the accessory is condemned because a deal was made with the killers), if the judicial process is considered legal and deemed fair and impartial, i.e., by a higher court, then the DP is correct punishment, and those gray areas need not be considered.

Will there be any kind of means We can join the subscriber list?