Another Rip-Roarin' Rental

After the snooze-fest at the Notary Public class yesterday (I passed the twenty-question test at the end, thus clearing me to become a "Public Official of North Carolina"), Shelly and I settled in for a typical wild and crazy Friday night- feeding large quantities of geese, eating left-overs, and watching a Blockbuster video. Sad as that might sound, its just perfect for the two of us, and I for one thoroughly enjoy such quiet nights.

Anyway, the wheels came off the cart to a degree after the conclusion of said video, The Life of David Gale. We did our best to avoid this, since we both went into it realizing the movie was anti-capital punishment (an issue we disagree on), but were unable to avoid the inevitable conflagration.

My major problem with the movie centered on the scene in which Gale, a philosophy professor at a university (the secular world's version of a saint), squares off in a televised debate against the pro-death-penalty governor of Texas. Inevitably, Hollywood is unable to resist making the conservative position consist of easily-debunked premises, one line slogans, and appeals to the Bible (which don't count, in liberals' minds, since not everyone believes the Bible). The one point the governor makes that Gale can't reply to is that there's been no one put to death that's ever been proved innocent after the fact, a fact that stands in real life to this day. The rest of the movie involves Gale's attempt to negate that fact, not to give anything away.

The movie lets stand Gale's other points: 1. The death penalty doesn't deter murderers, 2. 'Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind', 3. Most Christian denominations also oppose the death penalty. If you'll indulge me?

1. True, most criminals currently don't take the fact that they might be executed into account when they commit a crime. But the answer to that doesn't mean the penalty should be abolished. At this point, even if convicted and sentenced to death, it can take 10+ years before the sentence is carried out; how often does an event over a decade in the future deter anyone from doing things now? The 'sentence' for eating fast food three meals a day is likely to be carried out sooner than that of murder, yet that doesn't stop people from doing it! If appeals were limited, and sentences carried out immediately after their rejection, and criminals might very well think twice about what they're doing!

2. Actually, no- it leaves the entire world with a single eye each! (Much like a certain Italian greyhound we all know and love!) Which would be entirely fitting considering it wasn't the victim who commenced this rampant eye-gouging in the first place!

3. What Christians oppose and what the Bible demands aren't always the same. The Bible in the Old Testament is pretty clear in its capital punishment stance. And Jesus' teachings of forgiveness in the New Testament largely pertain to personal relations, not those between the government and its citizens. Also, despite being sentenced to death himself, Jesus never comes out and condemns the sentence itself (which, if it were truly unjust, one might expect him to, considering he was executed in one of the most barbaric ways imaginable). In fact, (getting a little into Christian doctrine here), God's very plan of salvation required Jesus' death; it would have been rather difficult for Him to die for our sins without capital punishment!

Anyway, enough about that. The story's good enough, and Kate Winslet, rejuvenated somehow from her decrepit appearance at the end of Titanic, has apparently come to regret throwing the diamond necklace in the ocean, as now she has to pay the bills working as a reporter. Anyway, go ahead and watch it, and bask in the knowledge that articulate, wry, intelligence ex-professors are probably pretty representative of your average death-row inmate, and thus deserve a few more decades of appeals. Or, what the heck, just go ahead and set 'em free- just don't do it again, you rascals!