Roger Ebert has an in-depth discussion of "Death Row Walk" in this film review, and it is clear that he has a myriad of ideas to express and discuss the core idea of the whole story, and after dissecting the character of Matthew, he also briefly expresses his thoughts on the death penalty.

In the film, the lawyer mentions the idea that with the continuous development of human civilization, the way in which the death penalty is carried out has also evolved from cruelty to humanity, which shows that the law is constantly improving and compromising in upholding human rights and dignity; The scope of application of the death penalty is also shrinking, which shows that the human understanding of the value of life is constantly being renewed.

However, the debate over whether the death penalty should be abolished has persisted, and even in the upcoming election year, the issue of the death penalty remains in the spotlight. In this work, Tim Robbins does not express his views simply and crudely, but instead shows the complexity of the issue of the death penalty from the standpoint of a bystander.

As the prison guard says in the movie, 'It's easy to comment on the execution.' What seems unreasonable or unnecessary on the surface is actually a profound theory and long-term experience. Perhaps, this is the core idea that Tim wants to express: under a legal system, there will always be differences in outlook on life, values and worldview, and the system cannot satisfy everyone's understanding of life, but it is constantly improving with the progress of history.

Therefore, whether the death penalty will be abolished in the future is still a point of debate, and the 'Death Row Walk' is just one example of an ordinary and not ordinary case.

The perspective of the film can be divided into three perspectives, 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. There are several details in the film that show this, such as the grief photos of the victims published in the local newspaper with the headline 'The Parents' Grief Never Ends', and the account of Hope's mother, who had been against the death penalty until the dentist put his hand in the victim's rotting mouth to confirm the record of the deceased's teeth, but after that day he fully supported the death penalty.

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

But for Matthew, the death penalty was not punitive until he confessed his guilt, because he did not believe that he should be sentenced to death at all, and it was not until he had regained his dignity that he faced the death penalty calmly, including the fear of death and the comfort of his family. But even though Matthew is a heinous murderer, his family is innocent, and for them, they are the same as Walter and Hope's families, and 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 loved ones, all we can think of is revenge, hoping to see the murderer pay the corresponding punishment - life, even at the expense of breaking the law to solve the other party. But when a life ends, can you really let yourself go? Watching a person's eyes slowly close in front of them really calms you?

The film's plot is constantly hesitating back and forth on this point of contradiction, and when at the end of the story, everyone participates in the ritual of executing Matthew as if they were attending a feast, which is numbing for some and enjoyable for others. But when the audience sees Hugo Lancaster's amber, desperate, pleading eyes, it is difficult for the audience not to be moved, just hoping to give him a chance to live, even if it is just to let him survive and be imprisoned for life. But in a blink of an eye, the movie really and coldly presents the process of Matthew's murder, the bloody and cruel without any temperature, and when the eyes finally stay on the victim's parents, this makes the audience feel ashamed of their tears.

It's a mixed and bad idea, and the audience doesn't want Matthew dead, but there's no reason why he's worth continuing to live. When Matthew slowly closes his eyes and slowly and calmly dies a cruel death, the victim's family seems to have mixed feelings, because they know that Matthew's death will not bring their children back to life. And for Matthew's mother, she also didn't have a son.

This contradictory view eventually condenses into a third perspective, 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, and her concern is how Matthew can achieve the dignity of life, not Matthew's deserving death sentence. In Helen's concept, God loves everyone, even if the other party is a death row prisoner, even if the other party is a cold-blooded murderer, they have something precious in their hearts, so everyone deserves to be respected and listened to. So Helen chooses to help Matthew, even though she's not sure if Matthew is really innocent because it doesn't matter to her.

But Helen's point of view is difficult for the world to understand, is a cruel murderer like Matthew really human? It's supposed to be a beast! They simply don't deserve God's forgiveness! This also caused Helen to fall into self-doubt.

When Helen confronted the victims' families, they asked, 'Why are you worried about the criminals and not thinking that maybe we need you?' In the face of such doubts, Helen was painful, struggling, and even more confused, especially after she discovered Matthew's racism and other characteristics, and began to doubt herself. But Helen bravely went to the victim's family and listened to their feelings, but was misunderstood to change her attitude and support the victim's side, and 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, and in the face of many problems, we always simply look at it as 'right or wrong', as if it is either black or white, good or evil, rudely ignoring all the hidden possibilities behind the matter, and just looking at the plight of others coldly from the eyes of a bystander.

Matthew was actually deprived of a right by most people because of a murder - even when the law guaranteed his basic human rights, people would think that he didn't deserve to live, he didn't deserve to communicate with people, he didn't deserve the help of a lawyer, it was strange for anyone to help him - either he went to hell, or he was used, or he had a brain problem, and they would all be divided into a line with Matthew, and they would also be questioned and despised by the angry public.

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

But this is obviously ridiculous.

What if Matthew was wronged? Then people will cry out for procedural justice, for someone to help him; But if Matthew is really guilty, then people will be hysterical shouting and shouting to kill, even if the other party is making a reasonable defense according to the procedure, people will die of patience. At this time, the psychology of the public is often that 'the legal process is rigged, and I just hope that this demon will be brought to justice soon'.

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

That's why Helen is great. Helen understands the anger of the victim's family, but she clings to some bottom lines in the midst of popular anger: human dignity is inviolable. Helen also condemned Matthew's crimes and refuted Matthew's sophistry, but she also calmed Matthew's heart, made Matthew confess his crimes, and finally walked peacefully on the Yellow Springs Road. Let the punishment represented by the 'death penalty' really have meaning.

Should the death penalty really be saved?

The collision of these three perspectives still does not give an answer. Of course, law needs to be rational and humane, but as a system, law cannot be concerned with the feelings of specific individuals because it must be consistent. Most people under the rule of law have no way to rationally discuss and criticize events, nor can they judge whether the actions of the parties are rational and dignified, which is also the meaning of the existence of the law.

The law restricts the minds of the public, and as a tool to achieve justice, the core proposition of the law is whether justice has been served, but the way in which justice is done is a subjective proposition, which cannot be separated from the existence of the individual and the feelings of the individual, and these often determine the limits of thinking.

However, the film still proposes a direction for rational thinking beyond discrimination, prejudice and hatred for the death penalty, that is, Ma practiced his last words before the execution, 'Whoever kills is wrong.' Whether it's me, you, or the government......

Indeed, it is wrong to kill, and no one has the right to end a life. Fighting anger with anger, countering violence with violence, and resisting life with life are all trampling on life. Especially deliberate killings.

Our attitude towards death is the mirror that reflects our hearts, and Helen has made the best interpretation of it with love and perseverance. After this qiē, Helen returned to her place of work, and she saw the words written on the walls by the children, 'We love you, Sister Helen,' which was enough to make her struggle for the rest of her life. Humanity may be uplifted, and so can we be saved. This is the answer to the question posed by the Death Row Walk about the Seven Deadly Sins.

Calm down and savor the 'Death Row Walk', which is the biggest takeaway of this movie. Maybe you, maybe I, maybe they, will all think differently. ”――17075+d6su9h+10372685――>