What do you think?
Rate this book
Dead Man Walking
When Helen Prejean is invited to write to a prisoner on Death Row who brutally killed two teenagers, she has little idea how much it will change her life. Although she abhors his crime, she befriends one man as he faces the electric chair. Dead Man Walking is Helen Prejean's gripping true story, which formed the basis for a major motion picture event. As powerful an indictment of the death penalty as has ever been written, her book was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize.
Audio Cassette
First published January 1, 1993
About the author
Helen Prejean
39 books139 followersSister Helen Prejean, CSJ (b. April 21, 1939, Baton Rouge, Louisiana) is a vowed Roman Catholic religious sister, one of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Medaille, who has become a leading American advocate for the abolition of the death penalty.
Her efforts began in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1981, through a correspondence she maintained with a convicted murderer, Elmo Patrick Sonnier, who was sentenced to death by electrocution. She visited Sonnier in prison and agreed to be his spiritual adviser in the months leading up to his death. The experience gave Prejean greater insight into the process involved in executions and she began speaking out against capital punishment. At the same time, she also founded Survive, an organization devoted to providing counselling to the families of victims of violence.
Prejean has since ministered to many other inmates on death row and witnessed several more executions. She served as National Chairperson of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty from 1993 to 1995.
An autobiographical account of her relationship with Sonnier and other inmates on death row served as the basis for the feature film and opera Dead Man Walking. In the film, she was portrayed by Susan Sarandon, who won an Academy Award. (Although Prejean herself was uncredited, she made a minor cameo as a woman in a candlelit vigil scene outside Louisiana State Penitentiary[1])
In addition to Sonnier, the account is also based on the inmate Robert Lee Willie who, with his friend Joseph Jesse Vaccaro, raped and killed 18-year-old Faith Hathaway May 28, 1980, eight days later kidnapping a Madisonville couple from a wooded lovers' lane and driving them to Alabama. They raped the 16-year-old girl, Debbie Morris (née Cuevas), who would later become the author of her book Forgiving the Dead Man Walking [2] and then stabbed and shot her boyfriend, 20-year-old Mark Brewster, leaving him tied to a tree paralyzed from the waist down.[3]
In 1999 Prejean formed Moratorium 2000 - a petition drive that eventually grew into a National Education campaign entitled The Moratorium Campaign, initially staffed by Robert Jones, Theresa Meisz and Jené O'Keefe and launching Witness to Innocence.
Prejean's second book, The Death of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions was published in December 2004. In it, she tells the story of two men, Dobie Gillis Williams and Joseph O'Dell, whom she accompanied to their executions. She believes that both of these men were innocent. The book also examines the recent history of death penalty decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States and looks at the track record of George W. Bush as Governor of Texas.
In 1998 Prejean was awarded the Pacem in Terris Award. It was named after a 1963 encyclical letter by Pope John XXIII that calls upon all people of good will to secure peace among all nations. Pacem in Terris is Latin for "Peace on Earth."
Prejean now bases her work at the Death Penalty Discourse Network in New Orleans and spends her time giving talks across the United States and around the world. She is pro-life: "The pope says we should be unconditionally pro-life; against abortion, against euthanasia, against suicide and (that means also) against the death penalty." This view is commonly called the Consistent Life Ethic.
In 2008, Sister Helen spoke at Jesuit High School, Sacramento, for a theme regarding social justice and the death penalty. Over 1000 students watched her speak on her opinions. Sr. Helen spoke at LaSalle University in Philadelphia on March 23, 2009 Prejean is currently scheduled to speak at the University of Puget Sound on March 30th. The event is open to the public
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page was last modified on 24 April 2009, at 17:45 (UTC).
Her efforts began in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1981, through a correspondence she maintained with a convicted murderer, Elmo Patrick Sonnier, who was sentenced to death by electrocution. She visited Sonnier in prison and agreed to be his spiritual adviser in the months leading up to his death. The experience gave Prejean greater insight into the process involved in executions and she began speaking out against capital punishment. At the same time, she also founded Survive, an organization devoted to providing counselling to the families of victims of violence.
Prejean has since ministered to many other inmates on death row and witnessed several more executions. She served as National Chairperson of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty from 1993 to 1995.
An autobiographical account of her relationship with Sonnier and other inmates on death row served as the basis for the feature film and opera Dead Man Walking. In the film, she was portrayed by Susan Sarandon, who won an Academy Award. (Although Prejean herself was uncredited, she made a minor cameo as a woman in a candlelit vigil scene outside Louisiana State Penitentiary[1])
In addition to Sonnier, the account is also based on the inmate Robert Lee Willie who, with his friend Joseph Jesse Vaccaro, raped and killed 18-year-old Faith Hathaway May 28, 1980, eight days later kidnapping a Madisonville couple from a wooded lovers' lane and driving them to Alabama. They raped the 16-year-old girl, Debbie Morris (née Cuevas), who would later become the author of her book Forgiving the Dead Man Walking [2] and then stabbed and shot her boyfriend, 20-year-old Mark Brewster, leaving him tied to a tree paralyzed from the waist down.[3]
In 1999 Prejean formed Moratorium 2000 - a petition drive that eventually grew into a National Education campaign entitled The Moratorium Campaign, initially staffed by Robert Jones, Theresa Meisz and Jené O'Keefe and launching Witness to Innocence.
Prejean's second book, The Death of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions was published in December 2004. In it, she tells the story of two men, Dobie Gillis Williams and Joseph O'Dell, whom she accompanied to their executions. She believes that both of these men were innocent. The book also examines the recent history of death penalty decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States and looks at the track record of George W. Bush as Governor of Texas.
In 1998 Prejean was awarded the Pacem in Terris Award. It was named after a 1963 encyclical letter by Pope John XXIII that calls upon all people of good will to secure peace among all nations. Pacem in Terris is Latin for "Peace on Earth."
Prejean now bases her work at the Death Penalty Discourse Network in New Orleans and spends her time giving talks across the United States and around the world. She is pro-life: "The pope says we should be unconditionally pro-life; against abortion, against euthanasia, against suicide and (that means also) against the death penalty." This view is commonly called the Consistent Life Ethic.
In 2008, Sister Helen spoke at Jesuit High School, Sacramento, for a theme regarding social justice and the death penalty. Over 1000 students watched her speak on her opinions. Sr. Helen spoke at LaSalle University in Philadelphia on March 23, 2009 Prejean is currently scheduled to speak at the University of Puget Sound on March 30th. The event is open to the public
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page was last modified on 24 April 2009, at 17:45 (UTC).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 798 reviews
May 4, 2011
This is the story of a serial killer who enslaves people, usually black men, and tortures them by telling them the date the killer plans to execute them and then by keeping them locked in chains until that date, always reminding them of the date’s imminence. Sometimes, the killer tells them that if they are lucky, if the killer likes them enough, they might escape death, but that just seems to increase the torture because the killer doesn’t really plan to let them go. The killer in this book also has a kind of Dexter complex, where the killer chooses victims morally corrupt enough that few people even notice their deaths. Of course, the killer in this book is state government.
This is actually one of the saddest books I’ve ever read. It’s hard to feel very sympathetic towards the prisoners that Sister Helen advocates for, and I have to be honest that I don’t share her confidence that a true life sentence will always be a true life sentence, or even that a true life sentence is more humane than the death penalty. On the other hand, I am completely convinced of the arbitrariness of state executions. Also, it was deeply tragic to read about the families of the executed men, and their devastation seems to deserve respect, just as does the devastation of the families of the executed men’s victims.
This year, I sat in the courtroom and watched parts of the trial of Angela McAnulty, who tortured her daughter to death over the course of about seven years. At the point that her daughter, Jeanette Maples, died, the coroner couldn’t name a cause of death because there were so many possible causes. She had numerous infected wounds, brain hemorrhaging, water in her lungs, and was severely emaciated. Angela had forced (forced? convinced?) her husband to install locks, to which only Angela had the keys, on most of the doors in the house, including the bathroom. Her daughter was only allowed to use the bathroom supervised because she would try to drink out of the toilet if she was unsupervised. There were other things, worse things. There were other kids who weren’t tortured, but who Angela involved in torturing Jeanette. The jury gave her the death penalty, and I have to say I would have done the same. In her police interrogation tape, she said that instead of torturing her daughter, she probably should have taken up smoking.
So, I feel pretty conflicted about the issue of the death penalty. I think Sister Helen Prejean is a lovely woman, and I think her compassion is truly noble. I’m not wholly convinced that the death penalty is the worst of American institutions, though. Buuuuuut, at the same time, the corruption that the death penalty seems to practically breed is truly disturbing. The fact that it is only used against the poor is equally troubling.
Although Angela McAnulty confessed to her crimes, and so no trial occurred as to her guilt (the only issue was sentencing), it was still a problem to me that her defense attorneys put on almost no case. Their closing argument was something like, “Yep, this is pretty much the worst thing ever. You’re a smart jury, and we’re reconciled to whatever you decide.” I’m not satisfied that that is actually a defense. I know the burden is on the state to prove a crime, but that doesn’t mean that no defense is necessary. According to Sister Helen, failure of the defense to actually provide a defense is a rampant problem.
I keep coming back to thinking about this issue in relation to the recent Supreme Court case Connick v. Thompson . That case is fascinating. Like, I want to investigate it and write a book about all of the people involved in it. It is, like, EVERYTHING interesting about the law. But, the thing about it is that I feel with great certainty that Justice Thomas’ opinion is correct (Slate does not agree). I think Justice Ginsburg’s dissent would have created really troubling law. So the reason it relates to Dead Man Walking is that they are both about the death penalty in Louisiana and how corrupt the prosecution of criminals who end up on death row is. They are both about how legal procedure is basically what decides who wins and loses. Since I totally love legal procedure for some insane reason, I kind of love that fact, but not when people unjustly die because of it.
One awesome thing about the Thompson case is that Harry Connick, Jr.’s dad, Harry Connick, Sr., who was the lead D.A. in New Orleans for a helluva long time (Wikipedia says 1973-2003), is the “Connick” in the title of the case.
Anyway, the issue in Connick v. Thompson was that Mr. Thompson was convicted of a crime and sentenced to the death penalty because the New Orleans prosecutors withheld evidence of a lab test that exonerated him. So, the lab tests get discovered, new trial, Mr. Thompson gets not only gets no death penalty in the new trial, he also gets completely acquitted of the crime. The withholding of evidence is a violation of the case Brady v. Maryland, which says prosecutors can’t withhold exonerating evidence.
Then, this is the interesting part (to me). You probably all know this, but I didn’t before law school. The statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the civil rights statute that says that we can sue people who “under color of” state law deprive us of our rights. So, the Supreme Court says that “people” can mean a lot of things. One of the things it can mean is municipal authorities in their personal capacities. (Like, as themselves, not as their office. So, when Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska, I would sue her as Sarah Palin, not as governor.) It can also mean municipalities themselves, but if you sue a municipality, you have to show that there is some procedure or custom, instituted by the municipality, that supported the deprivation of your rights. Some rule to change. This is the same with suing someone in their official capacity, like suing Mr. Connick as D.A. of New Orleans, or suing Governor Sarah Palin.
In Thompson, Mr. Connick, Sr., came out and said basically, “Yes, yes, unfortunately I misread Brady when I was the lead prosecutor.” *this is me going ballistic* So, he misread Brady to mean that he was supposed to withhold evidence? No. I am not willing to believe that happened. But, the genius thing about this is that then the attorneys bringing Thompson’s case sued the municipality, or Mr. Connick in his official capacity, not the prosecutors in their personal capacities. They argued that Mr. Thompson’s case alone, one instance of withholding evidence, combined with Mr. Connick’s statement that it was a mistake on his part, showed a custom of the municipality. And Justice Thomas was like, “No, one instance doesn’t show a custom or a procedure or a rule that we can attribute to the municipality.”
People tend not to sue officials in their personal capacity because individuals have less money, less insurance, than municipalities. The interesting thing if you take the Thompson case with Dead Man Walking is that Prejean is pretty clear that she thinks that this kind of thing went on all the time in the New Orleans Parish. Even the Slate article above notes that Louisiana courts have overturned, for Brady violations, many convictions coming out of Connick’s office. Correct me if I’m wrong (and I honestly haven’t read the opinion very closely because I have to actually do my schoolwork at some point), but it’s my understanding that the Supreme Court only considered the violations in relation to Thompson (and it would seem that way, too, because Thompson is the only plaintiff here). So interesting that, at least as it appears from reading the facts in the opinion, the attorneys didn’t bring suit using the other cases as well, even as evidence. All of the courts, even the lower courts that awarded judgment to Mr. Thompson, agreed that it was not custom or procedure to withhold evidence.
Anyway, that’s me geeking out on federal courts. I’m sure I haven’t explained the whole situation that well. And it does make sense to gamble by suing Connick in his official capacity, hoping for a judgment on which Mr. Thompson could actually collect, than to sue in his personal capacity. I just wonder about the lack of evidence. I wonder about the statements that Sister Helen makes in this book, which pretty blatantly imply that Mr. Connick’s office has been consistently guilty of § 1983 violations.
Okay, none of this is actually related to the paper I have to write on judicial review and the death penalty, so I need to go work on that now. It’s all just been rattling around in my head, so I felt like I needed to put it to paper. If you’ve made it this far, congratulations! Do you want to write my federal courts paper for me, too?
This is actually one of the saddest books I’ve ever read. It’s hard to feel very sympathetic towards the prisoners that Sister Helen advocates for, and I have to be honest that I don’t share her confidence that a true life sentence will always be a true life sentence, or even that a true life sentence is more humane than the death penalty. On the other hand, I am completely convinced of the arbitrariness of state executions. Also, it was deeply tragic to read about the families of the executed men, and their devastation seems to deserve respect, just as does the devastation of the families of the executed men’s victims.
This year, I sat in the courtroom and watched parts of the trial of Angela McAnulty, who tortured her daughter to death over the course of about seven years. At the point that her daughter, Jeanette Maples, died, the coroner couldn’t name a cause of death because there were so many possible causes. She had numerous infected wounds, brain hemorrhaging, water in her lungs, and was severely emaciated. Angela had forced (forced? convinced?) her husband to install locks, to which only Angela had the keys, on most of the doors in the house, including the bathroom. Her daughter was only allowed to use the bathroom supervised because she would try to drink out of the toilet if she was unsupervised. There were other things, worse things. There were other kids who weren’t tortured, but who Angela involved in torturing Jeanette. The jury gave her the death penalty, and I have to say I would have done the same. In her police interrogation tape, she said that instead of torturing her daughter, she probably should have taken up smoking.
So, I feel pretty conflicted about the issue of the death penalty. I think Sister Helen Prejean is a lovely woman, and I think her compassion is truly noble. I’m not wholly convinced that the death penalty is the worst of American institutions, though. Buuuuuut, at the same time, the corruption that the death penalty seems to practically breed is truly disturbing. The fact that it is only used against the poor is equally troubling.
Although Angela McAnulty confessed to her crimes, and so no trial occurred as to her guilt (the only issue was sentencing), it was still a problem to me that her defense attorneys put on almost no case. Their closing argument was something like, “Yep, this is pretty much the worst thing ever. You’re a smart jury, and we’re reconciled to whatever you decide.” I’m not satisfied that that is actually a defense. I know the burden is on the state to prove a crime, but that doesn’t mean that no defense is necessary. According to Sister Helen, failure of the defense to actually provide a defense is a rampant problem.
I keep coming back to thinking about this issue in relation to the recent Supreme Court case Connick v. Thompson . That case is fascinating. Like, I want to investigate it and write a book about all of the people involved in it. It is, like, EVERYTHING interesting about the law. But, the thing about it is that I feel with great certainty that Justice Thomas’ opinion is correct (Slate does not agree). I think Justice Ginsburg’s dissent would have created really troubling law. So the reason it relates to Dead Man Walking is that they are both about the death penalty in Louisiana and how corrupt the prosecution of criminals who end up on death row is. They are both about how legal procedure is basically what decides who wins and loses. Since I totally love legal procedure for some insane reason, I kind of love that fact, but not when people unjustly die because of it.
One awesome thing about the Thompson case is that Harry Connick, Jr.’s dad, Harry Connick, Sr., who was the lead D.A. in New Orleans for a helluva long time (Wikipedia says 1973-2003), is the “Connick” in the title of the case.
Anyway, the issue in Connick v. Thompson was that Mr. Thompson was convicted of a crime and sentenced to the death penalty because the New Orleans prosecutors withheld evidence of a lab test that exonerated him. So, the lab tests get discovered, new trial, Mr. Thompson gets not only gets no death penalty in the new trial, he also gets completely acquitted of the crime. The withholding of evidence is a violation of the case Brady v. Maryland, which says prosecutors can’t withhold exonerating evidence.
Then, this is the interesting part (to me). You probably all know this, but I didn’t before law school. The statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the civil rights statute that says that we can sue people who “under color of” state law deprive us of our rights. So, the Supreme Court says that “people” can mean a lot of things. One of the things it can mean is municipal authorities in their personal capacities. (Like, as themselves, not as their office. So, when Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska, I would sue her as Sarah Palin, not as governor.) It can also mean municipalities themselves, but if you sue a municipality, you have to show that there is some procedure or custom, instituted by the municipality, that supported the deprivation of your rights. Some rule to change. This is the same with suing someone in their official capacity, like suing Mr. Connick as D.A. of New Orleans, or suing Governor Sarah Palin.
In Thompson, Mr. Connick, Sr., came out and said basically, “Yes, yes, unfortunately I misread Brady when I was the lead prosecutor.” *this is me going ballistic* So, he misread Brady to mean that he was supposed to withhold evidence? No. I am not willing to believe that happened. But, the genius thing about this is that then the attorneys bringing Thompson’s case sued the municipality, or Mr. Connick in his official capacity, not the prosecutors in their personal capacities. They argued that Mr. Thompson’s case alone, one instance of withholding evidence, combined with Mr. Connick’s statement that it was a mistake on his part, showed a custom of the municipality. And Justice Thomas was like, “No, one instance doesn’t show a custom or a procedure or a rule that we can attribute to the municipality.”
People tend not to sue officials in their personal capacity because individuals have less money, less insurance, than municipalities. The interesting thing if you take the Thompson case with Dead Man Walking is that Prejean is pretty clear that she thinks that this kind of thing went on all the time in the New Orleans Parish. Even the Slate article above notes that Louisiana courts have overturned, for Brady violations, many convictions coming out of Connick’s office. Correct me if I’m wrong (and I honestly haven’t read the opinion very closely because I have to actually do my schoolwork at some point), but it’s my understanding that the Supreme Court only considered the violations in relation to Thompson (and it would seem that way, too, because Thompson is the only plaintiff here). So interesting that, at least as it appears from reading the facts in the opinion, the attorneys didn’t bring suit using the other cases as well, even as evidence. All of the courts, even the lower courts that awarded judgment to Mr. Thompson, agreed that it was not custom or procedure to withhold evidence.
Anyway, that’s me geeking out on federal courts. I’m sure I haven’t explained the whole situation that well. And it does make sense to gamble by suing Connick in his official capacity, hoping for a judgment on which Mr. Thompson could actually collect, than to sue in his personal capacity. I just wonder about the lack of evidence. I wonder about the statements that Sister Helen makes in this book, which pretty blatantly imply that Mr. Connick’s office has been consistently guilty of § 1983 violations.
Okay, none of this is actually related to the paper I have to write on judicial review and the death penalty, so I need to go work on that now. It’s all just been rattling around in my head, so I felt like I needed to put it to paper. If you’ve made it this far, congratulations! Do you want to write my federal courts paper for me, too?
February 1, 2015
...if we believe that murder is wrong and not admissible in our society, then it has to be wrong for everyone, not just individuals but governments as well.
This is the crux of Sister Helen Prejean's argument against capital punishment. She also asserts that the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime, costs taxpayers substantially more than life in prison in the long run,and is not fairly meted out on the merits of a case, but instead influenced heavily by race, poverty, and geography. She also claims that the individuals involved with the actual execution are generally uncomfortable with the process and if the public were forced to face the reality of the killing, existing support would wane.
I won't bother summarizing the plot/story. All I will say is that she offers a compelling argument against the death penalty, providing both personal accounts and statistics to back up her stance. At times I was brought to tears, which I think speaks to her ability to humanize the bad guys.
Early in the book, I was bothered by the fact that she didn't spend as much time humanizing the victims. It's much easier to feel for the man sitting on death row when you are allowed to forget what he's done. However, I think she rectifies this somewhat in the second half of the book where the victims are finally given a face, albeit a somewhat hazy one.
At this point in my life, I tend to agree with the sister, though I can't imagine how my resolve might be tested if it had been my child that was tortured, raped, or brutally murdered.
Still, I think Prejean's recounting and thoughtful commentary raises a number of valid points not only about the death penalty but also the US criminal justice system in general.
There are some religious undertones that I found annoying. Obviously, she felt her faith was a driving force behind her quest to have the death penalty abolished. Yet she works really hard to get there, a little too hard (after all Christianity is based on a human sacrifice...Christ's life in exchange for our souls...we are redeemed by Christ's blood and suffering...etc, etc, etc). Plus, my personal experience is that those who claim to be of a religious persuasion tend to be more supportive of the death penalty than those who are not.
Bottom line: it's a great discussion about the value of life, and whether the collective "we" has the right to take it. Does government condoned violence really deter violence or help us to heal from violence or does it only perpetuate the same attitude of violence that we're supposedly trying to discourage/punish?
Want to Read
January 18, 2021In light of the eleventh-hour federal executions the Trump administration has rushed through at the tail end of his presidency, I’m doing a buddy read of this book by anti-capital punishment activist, Sister Helen Prejean, with my friend Carmen over at @tomesandtextiles!
November 16, 2013
Wow. "Work of the eyes is done, now go do the heart work" (p309, from Rainer Maria Rilke)
Sister Helen Prejean must be one of the bravest people in the world. Not only does she support men convicted of murder on death row, and be with them in hyper final hours, and be with them in the death chamber itself, but she makes time for the victims, attends and raises money for victim support groups and does all this in the name of Jesus, bringing hope and comfort, steel and velvet, challenge and compassion.
I'm in awe.
I thought the book was going to be challenging, but not like this: people, dates, times, corruption of legal process, withholding evidence, common brutality to the families of both those convicted and those victimised. And well researched, humane and thoughtful too. She does not shirk from hard questions, nor does she go for pro hominem arguments.
She tells of one family who, after the man who murdered their daughter is executed, lose their focus: p188 'with Robert Willie dead, he doesn't have an object for his rage'. Isn't that the saddest sentence in the whole book?
Compare with p312-3: " Lloyd...went to the execution....not for revenge, but hoping for an apology. Patrick....had not disappointed him...'....I want to ask for you forgiveness...' and Lloyd had nodded his head, signalling a forgiveness he had already given.... But he acknowledges that it's a struggle...as he remembers David's birthday year by year and loses him all over again... Forgiveness is never going to be easy. Each day it must be prayed for and struggled for and won."
Questions of justice, revenge, 'paying for crime', punishment, acknowledgement, restitution, acceptance, restoration all come up here. Whilst society perhaps still needs to come up with a way of adequately dealing with people who commit terrible crimes it is clear that the death penalty is not that way.
Sister Helen Prejean must be one of the bravest people in the world. Not only does she support men convicted of murder on death row, and be with them in hyper final hours, and be with them in the death chamber itself, but she makes time for the victims, attends and raises money for victim support groups and does all this in the name of Jesus, bringing hope and comfort, steel and velvet, challenge and compassion.
I'm in awe.
I thought the book was going to be challenging, but not like this: people, dates, times, corruption of legal process, withholding evidence, common brutality to the families of both those convicted and those victimised. And well researched, humane and thoughtful too. She does not shirk from hard questions, nor does she go for pro hominem arguments.
She tells of one family who, after the man who murdered their daughter is executed, lose their focus: p188 'with Robert Willie dead, he doesn't have an object for his rage'. Isn't that the saddest sentence in the whole book?
Compare with p312-3: " Lloyd...went to the execution....not for revenge, but hoping for an apology. Patrick....had not disappointed him...'....I want to ask for you forgiveness...' and Lloyd had nodded his head, signalling a forgiveness he had already given.... But he acknowledges that it's a struggle...as he remembers David's birthday year by year and loses him all over again... Forgiveness is never going to be easy. Each day it must be prayed for and struggled for and won."
Questions of justice, revenge, 'paying for crime', punishment, acknowledgement, restitution, acceptance, restoration all come up here. Whilst society perhaps still needs to come up with a way of adequately dealing with people who commit terrible crimes it is clear that the death penalty is not that way.
June 6, 2024
i hope you all will forgive me for my hubris when i say i went in to this not thinking i would learn that much that i didn’t already believe about the death penalty being bad. i’m happy to report that i was INCORRECT. this book is not only important, but also very very good
October 23, 2021
I don't know how to put words to how engrossing, shocking, and passion-inspiring a book "Dead Man Walking" is. I heard Sr. Prejean speak at a convention and her humor endeared and her conviction electrified. Picking up this book, I expected a hard read; instead, I found myself ripping through the pages. The narrative voice is gripping and tackles the subject of death row with all the electrifying conviction of her speaking presence, but in so much more depth. The story and the argument it suggests are woven so seamlessly together, you forget you're being taken to school. It is coherent and well-referenced.
I aspire to the courage of this woman who seems to have no fear. She will speak truth to a murderer facing death in a way that allows him to hear it, and she'll speak truth to Christians who are unable to see the intrinsic conflict between what they claim to be their faith and their embrace of the death penalty. She is Catholic in the best sense, speaking to both sides of a debate in a way that they can hear, and advocating for victims and perpetrators alike. It is a breathtaking example for me to follow as a Catholic Christian.
I aspire to the courage of this woman who seems to have no fear. She will speak truth to a murderer facing death in a way that allows him to hear it, and she'll speak truth to Christians who are unable to see the intrinsic conflict between what they claim to be their faith and their embrace of the death penalty. She is Catholic in the best sense, speaking to both sides of a debate in a way that they can hear, and advocating for victims and perpetrators alike. It is a breathtaking example for me to follow as a Catholic Christian.
June 9, 2018
„Przed egzekucją”, wydane w Polsce w trzydzieści lat po wykonaniu ostatniego wyroku śmierci w naszym kraju, wciąż wywołuje skrajne emocje, bez względu na to, po której czytelnik staje stronie. To historia niezłomnej walki z amerykańskim systemem sprawiedliwości, która trwa niezmiennie od lat. To nie jest książka do czytania z przyjemnością, ale do poznania szerokiego spektrum faktów i uczuć, jakie pojawiają się przy tematyce kary śmierci, targając zarówno skazańcami, ich obrońcami, rodzinami zarówno skazanych, jak i samych ofiar. Siostra Helen Prejean nie potrafi i nie chce być obiektywna, niemniej pokazuje ten skomplikowany temat z różnych perspektyw, starając się oddać głos wszystkim, których on w jakiś sposób dotyczy.
„Przed egzekucją” to ważna pozycja, która wciąż robi wrażenie, tym większe, że w polskim wydaniu książki czytelnik znajdzie nie tylko wstęp napisany przez samą siostrę Prejean do polskich czytelników, ale również uzupełniający reportaż zatytułowany „Dawca krwi” Mariusza Sepioło o ostatnim polskim skazańcu.
„Przed egzekucją” to ważna pozycja, która wciąż robi wrażenie, tym większe, że w polskim wydaniu książki czytelnik znajdzie nie tylko wstęp napisany przez samą siostrę Prejean do polskich czytelników, ale również uzupełniający reportaż zatytułowany „Dawca krwi” Mariusza Sepioło o ostatnim polskim skazańcu.
January 7, 2008
So, this one has a seriously funny story attached to it, but it also had a huge impact on me at that time in my life. I went out on a first date with a really cute guy, and we went to the movie. I was so troubled by the film (although I loved it), that I cried so much he had to take me home. I couldn't even talk! He surprised me by asking me out again, though. He must have thought I was a lunatic.
The book is very good, and it lives up to the notion that the book is always better than the movie. It won't make you cry as much, though, as it's written exclusively from the Sister PreJean's perspective, and it's more about her work in the case. Her perspective and guidance for those she meets is so compassionate and honest. Very enjoyable book.
The book is very good, and it lives up to the notion that the book is always better than the movie. It won't make you cry as much, though, as it's written exclusively from the Sister PreJean's perspective, and it's more about her work in the case. Her perspective and guidance for those she meets is so compassionate and honest. Very enjoyable book.
December 28, 2015
Sister Prejean is speaking on our campus on April 9th. I'm very much looking forward to speaking with her, and I'll be assigning this book (as well as attendance at her lecture) to my undergrad students. There may only be one or two books you read in college that really make an impact on the person you become. This might be one of them.
April 29, 2011
Compelling read. I am somewhat suspicious of her statistics but only based on the age of the book and how quickly things change in the world of criminal/penal justice.
That aside, it is a well-written first person account by an intelligent, sensitive Roman Catholic sister of her experiences as the spiritual advisor to two death row inmates. Her frank reactions to the very different personalities of the men allow us, the readers, to sit back and form our own opinions, while examining the crimes, victims, and legal process in late 20th Century Louisiana.
Whatever your political sympathies before beginning Dead Man Walking, they will scarcely be simplified after reading it. Sr. Prejean's book looks at the administrative and judicial problems created by violent crime from several perspectives. Although she initially became involved as spiritual advisor to the 'dead man walking', her compassion as a person led her to be as fully committed to their crime victims, since they could no longer speak for themselves. Eventually, her relationship with the inmates led to contact with the parents and family members of those murdered by the inmates as well as the state, which in turn led to greater awareness of the ripple effects of each crime.
An unforgettable read. Highly recommended.
That aside, it is a well-written first person account by an intelligent, sensitive Roman Catholic sister of her experiences as the spiritual advisor to two death row inmates. Her frank reactions to the very different personalities of the men allow us, the readers, to sit back and form our own opinions, while examining the crimes, victims, and legal process in late 20th Century Louisiana.
Whatever your political sympathies before beginning Dead Man Walking, they will scarcely be simplified after reading it. Sr. Prejean's book looks at the administrative and judicial problems created by violent crime from several perspectives. Although she initially became involved as spiritual advisor to the 'dead man walking', her compassion as a person led her to be as fully committed to their crime victims, since they could no longer speak for themselves. Eventually, her relationship with the inmates led to contact with the parents and family members of those murdered by the inmates as well as the state, which in turn led to greater awareness of the ripple effects of each crime.
An unforgettable read. Highly recommended.
Read
February 19, 2015Had to abandon this book at Chapter 3, page 43. I've never abandoned this many books in a short span of two months so I'm a little worried that I may be giving up too soon on them.
Really wanted to like this and was so excited to read this since I had loved the movie with Sean Penn. The book is so dry though and reads like the reports they had us do back in high school, so in that sense it also made the book seemed outdated for me. The author jumps around a lot so there's not a linear storyline that made me focus on the story. I kept feeling like she missed chunks of story before she would jump onto another part of the story. For example, Sister Helen's recounting of her first encounter with Pat was so brief I felt like she didn't want to tell me everything that had happened. It made me start to lose interest every time she jumped around storylines.
Highly disappointed that I did not like this more. A little part of me does not want to give up on this as I find a story about a nun befriending a man on death row so fascinating. I may have to come back to this book at some other time.
Really wanted to like this and was so excited to read this since I had loved the movie with Sean Penn. The book is so dry though and reads like the reports they had us do back in high school, so in that sense it also made the book seemed outdated for me. The author jumps around a lot so there's not a linear storyline that made me focus on the story. I kept feeling like she missed chunks of story before she would jump onto another part of the story. For example, Sister Helen's recounting of her first encounter with Pat was so brief I felt like she didn't want to tell me everything that had happened. It made me start to lose interest every time she jumped around storylines.
Highly disappointed that I did not like this more. A little part of me does not want to give up on this as I find a story about a nun befriending a man on death row so fascinating. I may have to come back to this book at some other time.
August 16, 2026
Though Sister Helen writes compellingly and is clearly a very sacrificial person who is willing to give all for her cause, she has lost the plot as a Catholic nun. She changed her consecrated identity from saving souls for heaven to saving bodies from death row. She exchanged the supernatural wisdom of the Church for the natural wisdom of Albert Camus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King.
Sister Helen believes that the death penalty is against human dignity. She takes her notion of this dignity from the Enlightenment, which says that this dignity is never lost, even upon the commission of horrible crimes. At the same time, she does not seem to think that keeping a person incarcerated for life is against their dignity.
In this book, we read about Sister taking on the role of spiritual advisor to two men on death row. The priest chaplain at the prison advises her to encourage these men to repent and receive the sacraments of the Church, so that they can save their souls. In times past, this was considered to be the greatest mercy that could be shown to those condemned to death. Whatever their crimes in this life, they could live eternally happy with God in the next through these supernatural acts. St. Joseph Cafasso famously moved 68 men to make their peace with God before going to the gallows in Italy, in the 1800s, a 100% success rate.
“Your job is to help this fellow save his soul by receiving the sacraments of the church before he dies”, the chaplain says to her (p. 25). Yes, exactly! But this is not at all Sister’s program.
No doubt the reason is that Sr. Helen does not spend her time attempting to get the condemned men to receive the sacraments. The two men she recounts herself advising both refuse the sacraments at the end. Instead, she gives them sympathy for their unjust plight of having to be executed by the State and tries to get them to die with love in their hearts instead of hatred.
When the first man, Pat Sonnier, expresses his resentment towards the priest chaplain and the fact that he does not want a prayer service with the priest, Sr. Helen does not try to convince him that his resentment is unreasonable and that he should mee with the priest anyway. Rather, she choreographs a prayer service of her own, which consists of him listening to the song “Be Not Afraid” (p. 77), which may be found here.
Sister’s scruples, throughout the book, are all directed towards any cooperation in the death penalty, and she frequently tries to communicate those scruples to others (see, for example, p. 89 and p. 90). But she is not concerned about her spiritual charges refusing the sacraments right before they die.
“I’m available for the last sacraments,” [the priest] tells [Sr. Helen]. I give his message to Pat. Pat shakes his head. ‘No, I don’t like that man. All of you, my friends who love me, you make me feel close to God. Sister Helen, when it is all over, you receive communion for both of us.’ I promise that I will.” (p. 91) And she does. Instead of encouraging Pat to have faith in the sacraments and dispose his soul to meet his divine judge, she give him her sympathy and plays the role of his advocate before man.
It is true that the sentence that Pat received was too harsh, because his brother Eddie committed the actual murders and Pat was only an accomplice. However, the best thing to be done in such a case would be to encourage him to accept the injustice in reparation for his real crimes, so that he could reduce his punishment after this life. Instead of this, Sr. Helen wallows with Pat in the injustice and her fellow sisters are present at the execution in order to protest the death penalty. As Pat goes to the chair, Sister kisses him on the back and asks him to pray for her (p. 93). We learn later in the book that she is praying to Pat as if he is a canonized saint! (p. 209)
The Sisters arrange for Pat to be buried in their cemetery and for the bishop of the diocese to conduct his funeral, which confuses and scandalizes people. “[T]his executed murderer ‘received in death what few Catholics ever achieve – a funeral Mass conducted by a bishop and burial within the shadow of graves of other bishops”, says an article published after the funeral (p. 108).
In the end, Sr. Helen believes that justice is unjust. What I mean is that Sister Helen believes that the retributive justice which Catholics have always considered to be the moral justification of capital punishment, she believes to be wrong. But such justice is simply part of basic natural law, as is so well explained in By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment, pp. 52-56.
And so, instead of assisting death row inmates to save their souls, she tries to save them from the death penalty. This is a tragedy.
“The paths of history are stained with the blood of those who have fallen victim to “God’s Avengers”. Kings and Popes and military generals and heads of state have killed, claiming God’s authority and God’s blessing. I do not believe in such a God.” (p. 21)
Sister Helen believes that the death penalty is against human dignity. She takes her notion of this dignity from the Enlightenment, which says that this dignity is never lost, even upon the commission of horrible crimes. At the same time, she does not seem to think that keeping a person incarcerated for life is against their dignity.
In this book, we read about Sister taking on the role of spiritual advisor to two men on death row. The priest chaplain at the prison advises her to encourage these men to repent and receive the sacraments of the Church, so that they can save their souls. In times past, this was considered to be the greatest mercy that could be shown to those condemned to death. Whatever their crimes in this life, they could live eternally happy with God in the next through these supernatural acts. St. Joseph Cafasso famously moved 68 men to make their peace with God before going to the gallows in Italy, in the 1800s, a 100% success rate.
“Your job is to help this fellow save his soul by receiving the sacraments of the church before he dies”, the chaplain says to her (p. 25). Yes, exactly! But this is not at all Sister’s program.
“[The chaplain] is strictly an old-school, pre-Vatican II Catholic, and he shows me a pamphlet on sexual purity and modesty of dress that he distributes to the prisoners. Later I will be the source of such stress to this man that the warden will tell me, ‘That old man is going to have a heart attack because of you.’ Later, the chaplain will try to bar me and other women from serving as spiritual advisers to death-row inmates.” (p. 25)
No doubt the reason is that Sr. Helen does not spend her time attempting to get the condemned men to receive the sacraments. The two men she recounts herself advising both refuse the sacraments at the end. Instead, she gives them sympathy for their unjust plight of having to be executed by the State and tries to get them to die with love in their hearts instead of hatred.
When the first man, Pat Sonnier, expresses his resentment towards the priest chaplain and the fact that he does not want a prayer service with the priest, Sr. Helen does not try to convince him that his resentment is unreasonable and that he should mee with the priest anyway. Rather, she choreographs a prayer service of her own, which consists of him listening to the song “Be Not Afraid” (p. 77), which may be found here.
Sister’s scruples, throughout the book, are all directed towards any cooperation in the death penalty, and she frequently tries to communicate those scruples to others (see, for example, p. 89 and p. 90). But she is not concerned about her spiritual charges refusing the sacraments right before they die.
“I’m available for the last sacraments,” [the priest] tells [Sr. Helen]. I give his message to Pat. Pat shakes his head. ‘No, I don’t like that man. All of you, my friends who love me, you make me feel close to God. Sister Helen, when it is all over, you receive communion for both of us.’ I promise that I will.” (p. 91) And she does. Instead of encouraging Pat to have faith in the sacraments and dispose his soul to meet his divine judge, she give him her sympathy and plays the role of his advocate before man.
It is true that the sentence that Pat received was too harsh, because his brother Eddie committed the actual murders and Pat was only an accomplice. However, the best thing to be done in such a case would be to encourage him to accept the injustice in reparation for his real crimes, so that he could reduce his punishment after this life. Instead of this, Sr. Helen wallows with Pat in the injustice and her fellow sisters are present at the execution in order to protest the death penalty. As Pat goes to the chair, Sister kisses him on the back and asks him to pray for her (p. 93). We learn later in the book that she is praying to Pat as if he is a canonized saint! (p. 209)
The Sisters arrange for Pat to be buried in their cemetery and for the bishop of the diocese to conduct his funeral, which confuses and scandalizes people. “[T]his executed murderer ‘received in death what few Catholics ever achieve – a funeral Mass conducted by a bishop and burial within the shadow of graves of other bishops”, says an article published after the funeral (p. 108).
In the end, Sr. Helen believes that justice is unjust. What I mean is that Sister Helen believes that the retributive justice which Catholics have always considered to be the moral justification of capital punishment, she believes to be wrong. But such justice is simply part of basic natural law, as is so well explained in By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment, pp. 52-56.
And so, instead of assisting death row inmates to save their souls, she tries to save them from the death penalty. This is a tragedy.
March 26, 2016
Sr. Helen Prejean, C.S.J., is a polemicist.
I don't say this as a condemnation, just as something I was never able to forget while reading Dead Man Walking. This is a woman making an argument; her goal is to persuade. As a reader, I was always able to feel her persuading me as I read, and even though I agree with her--the death penalty as practiced in the American criminal justice system is an abomination and a farce--I had to keep reminding myself not to dig in my heels just because I don't like being persuaded of things.
Which is also not to say that she is not extremely persuasive. Sister Helen is an excellent storyteller, and she is always careful to keep the other side of her story in mind: the Bourques and the LeBlancs as well as Pat Sonnier, the Harveys as well as Robert Lee Willie. She's perfectly open about her own rhetorical purpose, and she's willing to show the people who don't agree with her as being good and morally upright people who are able to turn their daughter's horrible death into purpose that is not simply about supporting the death penalty, but about advocating for the rights of the families of murder victims. She's sometimes a little disingenuous, but I never felt she was dishonest.
The movie conflates Pat Sonnier and Robert Lee Willie, which I think does a disservice to the moral complexity of the book. Sonnier, who expresses remorse and accepts responsibility for his terrible crime, who loves his brother fiercely enough to forgive him and (in a sense) to die for him, who is open to and accepting of Sister Helen's message. Who is enough of a man (unlike Willie, the narrative suggests) to drop his machismo and admit his emotions. Sonnier, who thanks Sister Helen for loving him, is just about the perfect poster child for her purpose.
Willie is not. He is not remorseful; he shifts responsibility to the other guy. (Willie & Sonnier are interesting mirrors of each other; both had a partner in crime, and both received the death penalty while their partner got life. Sonnier, in something that was either a clusterfuck or a very shrewd manipulation on Eddie Sonnier's part, confessed; Willie says consistently that it was all Vaccaro's fault, that Vaccaro did it. The closest he gets to admitting culpability is saying that he shouldn't have followed Vaccaro's lead.) He clearly likes Sister Helen, but he's resistant to being molded and he maintains his exaggerated machismo to the end. No confessions, no mention of love (except of course for his mother), no sign that there's anything in him that could be salvaged or rehabilitated or that is even capable of recognizing the idea.
There's a really weird moment where Sister Helen tells him, while they're waiting for his execution, that when she first met him she thought he was a sociopath. And I said (I think even out loud), "You mean you think he's not?" She fails in her project there with me, in the sense that her project is to persuade readers that even the most hardened criminals are still, as her abolitionist lawyer friend says of Willie, "a child sitting inside [a] tough, macho dude" (119). I don't believe that about Willie--Willie makes my skin crawl, first to last--and in any case, that's not why I believe the death penalty is wrong.
I believe the death penalty is wrong for many of the same reasons Sister Helen does. E.g.:
(1) Our government, corrupt, inefficient, and even incompetent as it so often is, should not have the power of life or death over its citizens.
(2) The imposition of the death penalty in America is grossly skewed toward African-Americans, the lower classes, (reprehensibly) the mentally disabled, and towards criminals who murder whites. If we're going to claim it's justice, then it has to be administered justly.
(3) It is absolutely cruel and unusual punishment, despite the fancy footwork the Supreme Court tried to hide behind in Gregg vs. Georgia. Towards the end of the book, the father of one of Willie's victims says, "Know what they should've done with Willie? [...] They should've strapped him in that chair, counted to ten, then at the count of nine taken him out of the chair and let him sit in his cell for a day or two and then strapped him in the chair again. It was too easy for him. He went too quick" (235). What Vernon Harvey doesn't recognize, and what the narrative doesn't point out, is that that's what the torturous system of appeals and retrials and more appeals already does. Stays of execution, temporary reprieves, courts considering appeals only to reject them, the awful, awful cruelty of the power the governor has to commute the prisoner's sentence up until the literal moment the switch is thrown . . . these are torture just as much as the strappado or the rack. It shows more clearly, actually, with Sonnier, because we see more of the process and because Sister Helen (Helen-Prejean-the-author painting Sister-Helen-the-character as the raw naive newbie) doesn't truly believe Sonnier's going to die, that nothing she can do can save him, until 8:40 on the night of his execution (Sonnier officially died at fifteen minutes past midnight). This tug o'war with hope as the prize is dreadful, excruciating for the victim's family and excruciating for the man waiting to die. It's not justice.
There are any number of ethical questions that neither this book nor this review have touched, infinite delicate delineations of gray between Sister Helen and Vernon Harvey (shades of black between Pat Sonnier and Robert Lee Willie), and I do in fact applaud this book for not shutting any of those down.
I don't say this as a condemnation, just as something I was never able to forget while reading Dead Man Walking. This is a woman making an argument; her goal is to persuade. As a reader, I was always able to feel her persuading me as I read, and even though I agree with her--the death penalty as practiced in the American criminal justice system is an abomination and a farce--I had to keep reminding myself not to dig in my heels just because I don't like being persuaded of things.
Which is also not to say that she is not extremely persuasive. Sister Helen is an excellent storyteller, and she is always careful to keep the other side of her story in mind: the Bourques and the LeBlancs as well as Pat Sonnier, the Harveys as well as Robert Lee Willie. She's perfectly open about her own rhetorical purpose, and she's willing to show the people who don't agree with her as being good and morally upright people who are able to turn their daughter's horrible death into purpose that is not simply about supporting the death penalty, but about advocating for the rights of the families of murder victims. She's sometimes a little disingenuous, but I never felt she was dishonest.
The movie conflates Pat Sonnier and Robert Lee Willie, which I think does a disservice to the moral complexity of the book. Sonnier, who expresses remorse and accepts responsibility for his terrible crime, who loves his brother fiercely enough to forgive him and (in a sense) to die for him, who is open to and accepting of Sister Helen's message. Who is enough of a man (unlike Willie, the narrative suggests) to drop his machismo and admit his emotions. Sonnier, who thanks Sister Helen for loving him, is just about the perfect poster child for her purpose.
Willie is not. He is not remorseful; he shifts responsibility to the other guy. (Willie & Sonnier are interesting mirrors of each other; both had a partner in crime, and both received the death penalty while their partner got life. Sonnier, in something that was either a clusterfuck or a very shrewd manipulation on Eddie Sonnier's part, confessed; Willie says consistently that it was all Vaccaro's fault, that Vaccaro did it. The closest he gets to admitting culpability is saying that he shouldn't have followed Vaccaro's lead.) He clearly likes Sister Helen, but he's resistant to being molded and he maintains his exaggerated machismo to the end. No confessions, no mention of love (except of course for his mother), no sign that there's anything in him that could be salvaged or rehabilitated or that is even capable of recognizing the idea.
There's a really weird moment where Sister Helen tells him, while they're waiting for his execution, that when she first met him she thought he was a sociopath. And I said (I think even out loud), "You mean you think he's not?" She fails in her project there with me, in the sense that her project is to persuade readers that even the most hardened criminals are still, as her abolitionist lawyer friend says of Willie, "a child sitting inside [a] tough, macho dude" (119). I don't believe that about Willie--Willie makes my skin crawl, first to last--and in any case, that's not why I believe the death penalty is wrong.
I believe the death penalty is wrong for many of the same reasons Sister Helen does. E.g.:
(1) Our government, corrupt, inefficient, and even incompetent as it so often is, should not have the power of life or death over its citizens.
(2) The imposition of the death penalty in America is grossly skewed toward African-Americans, the lower classes, (reprehensibly) the mentally disabled, and towards criminals who murder whites. If we're going to claim it's justice, then it has to be administered justly.
(3) It is absolutely cruel and unusual punishment, despite the fancy footwork the Supreme Court tried to hide behind in Gregg vs. Georgia. Towards the end of the book, the father of one of Willie's victims says, "Know what they should've done with Willie? [...] They should've strapped him in that chair, counted to ten, then at the count of nine taken him out of the chair and let him sit in his cell for a day or two and then strapped him in the chair again. It was too easy for him. He went too quick" (235). What Vernon Harvey doesn't recognize, and what the narrative doesn't point out, is that that's what the torturous system of appeals and retrials and more appeals already does. Stays of execution, temporary reprieves, courts considering appeals only to reject them, the awful, awful cruelty of the power the governor has to commute the prisoner's sentence up until the literal moment the switch is thrown . . . these are torture just as much as the strappado or the rack. It shows more clearly, actually, with Sonnier, because we see more of the process and because Sister Helen (Helen-Prejean-the-author painting Sister-Helen-the-character as the raw naive newbie) doesn't truly believe Sonnier's going to die, that nothing she can do can save him, until 8:40 on the night of his execution (Sonnier officially died at fifteen minutes past midnight). This tug o'war with hope as the prize is dreadful, excruciating for the victim's family and excruciating for the man waiting to die. It's not justice.
There are any number of ethical questions that neither this book nor this review have touched, infinite delicate delineations of gray between Sister Helen and Vernon Harvey (shades of black between Pat Sonnier and Robert Lee Willie), and I do in fact applaud this book for not shutting any of those down.
October 27, 2014
Sister Prejean is a woman whose moral compass seems to be set. There is no wavering here. She believes what she believes and it extends across the board. She never seems to act rashly or contradict herself. I wonder how that would be? She extends her love and understanding to all whom she meets; the convicted as well as those who have to carry out the sentence, whether they believe in it or not; the victims and their families, and those who are actively in opposition to her.
One thing that made me rethink the death penalty; she asserts that putting a prisoner to death is actually more expensive than keeping them incarcerated for life. I thought that was really interesting, because one of my main beliefs was that it was probably cheaper to put a prisoner to death than to keep him for the rest of his life. Sister Prejean says; "Public surveys indicate that support for the death penally drops significantly when the public is assured that murderers will remain behind bars for life."
Another couple of things that made me think;
"I wonder whether his death sentence makes his own repentance even more difficult. Someone is trying to kill him and this must rivet his energies on his own survival, not the pain of others."
"The tragedy for the victims family will be confounded because the murderer of their daughter, about to undergo a dramatic death at the hands of the state, is certain to draw media attention, which will carefully note what the condemned man eats at his last meal and his farewell words to the world - far more attention than his victim received."
Fascinating and fun to read something that makes you think of things a different way.
One thing that made me rethink the death penalty; she asserts that putting a prisoner to death is actually more expensive than keeping them incarcerated for life. I thought that was really interesting, because one of my main beliefs was that it was probably cheaper to put a prisoner to death than to keep him for the rest of his life. Sister Prejean says; "Public surveys indicate that support for the death penally drops significantly when the public is assured that murderers will remain behind bars for life."
Another couple of things that made me think;
"I wonder whether his death sentence makes his own repentance even more difficult. Someone is trying to kill him and this must rivet his energies on his own survival, not the pain of others."
"The tragedy for the victims family will be confounded because the murderer of their daughter, about to undergo a dramatic death at the hands of the state, is certain to draw media attention, which will carefully note what the condemned man eats at his last meal and his farewell words to the world - far more attention than his victim received."
Fascinating and fun to read something that makes you think of things a different way.
April 20, 2014
No matter your current thoughts on the death penalty, you owe it to yourself to read this book with an open mind. I read it in the run-up to Easter 2007, and would recommend it as perfect reading for the season. As I truly engaged with themes of guilt and retribution, I felt the reality of death row was brought home to me for the first time. Many of the men Prejean deals with in this book we would tend to dismiss as monsters, yet Jesus is the God who comes for the lost and the discounted, the God who faces execution himself.
(The film, which conflates some of the characters and events of the book, is equally affecting. I saw it first, but it does not ruin the reading experience in any way.)
(The film, which conflates some of the characters and events of the book, is equally affecting. I saw it first, but it does not ruin the reading experience in any way.)
July 16, 2020
From ImdB:
A nun, while comforting a convicted killer on death row, empathizes with both the killer and his victim's families.
A nun, while comforting a convicted killer on death row, empathizes with both the killer and his victim's families.
June 13, 2026
“If a policy or law is morally wrong, and we know it’s wrong, aren’t we bound by conscience to oppose it?” (103)
The issue of the death penalty outlined in this book can quite easily apply to many other current issues including abortion and the similar arguments made by those who defend it as a ‘personal choice’ or a ‘legal right’ even if they personally disagree. Sister Helen Prejean’s stance on the protection of human life, all human life, is wonderfully rooted in Catholic identity, but really can apply to the moral sensibilities of all humans. She writes with such compassion and love to all humans, both those victimized and those guilty of violent crimes, living out Jesus’s example to love even your greatest enemies. I was incredibly inspired by her courage to love those who the world sees as disposable, worthless, and unworthy of life, for truly that is what God called up to do. To love all human life radically, even if that love is unpopular, even if that love opposes something society has deemed legal and “right”—this novel is a great testament to the call of the Christian in today’s world, I would highly recommend to any who need a reminder of this call.
The issue of the death penalty outlined in this book can quite easily apply to many other current issues including abortion and the similar arguments made by those who defend it as a ‘personal choice’ or a ‘legal right’ even if they personally disagree. Sister Helen Prejean’s stance on the protection of human life, all human life, is wonderfully rooted in Catholic identity, but really can apply to the moral sensibilities of all humans. She writes with such compassion and love to all humans, both those victimized and those guilty of violent crimes, living out Jesus’s example to love even your greatest enemies. I was incredibly inspired by her courage to love those who the world sees as disposable, worthless, and unworthy of life, for truly that is what God called up to do. To love all human life radically, even if that love is unpopular, even if that love opposes something society has deemed legal and “right”—this novel is a great testament to the call of the Christian in today’s world, I would highly recommend to any who need a reminder of this call.
March 6, 2017
El otro día me encontré de nuevo con este libro mientras buscaba en la biblioteca futuras lecturas, lo leí hace ya casi 20 años pero es tan estremecedor que te marca y a pesar del tiempo recuerdo lo que me hizo sentir el leerlo. Lo escribió una monja católica que ha dedicado su vida a dar consuelo a los condenados a muerte y a sus familiares y que dejó en este libro el testimonio desgarrador que le ha producido esa experiencia. Un alegato contra la pena de muerte con argumentos demoledores difíciles de rebatir. Su historia fue llevada al cine con las interpretaciones inolvidables de susan sarandon y sean penn.
May 29, 2025
“before, i had asked God to right the wrongs and comfort the suffering. now i know - really know - that God entrusts those tasks to us.” an absolutely profound and thought provoking book. i’m convinced every person needs to read this. sister does a remarkable job putting the reader there in death row with the inmate and there alongside the victims families. you’re able to truly see the systemic issues within our governments justice system, as well as learn real practical ways to support victims families. just truly a wonderful book— i’ll be thinking about to forever.
February 27, 2026
Very informative & amazing storytelling. For the foreseeable future I’ll be reading happy stuff though this was quite the bummer.
February 14, 2024
review
This account of death row inmates and capital punishment will always be in my heart and mind. Sister Helen is a true, true hero of our faith.
This account of death row inmates and capital punishment will always be in my heart and mind. Sister Helen is a true, true hero of our faith.
March 6, 2018
Actually 2.5/5 This was okay. I do really appreciate the message, but due to my mental health state at the moment this book made me super uncomfortable and made me feel kind of shitty. That ending was really good, and I almost started crying. Mini RTC
November 10, 2025
It’s kind of fun to read a book that doesn’t change your opinion on an issue, but instead makes you even more steadfast in that opinion. I only wish (and granted, this book came out over 30 years ago so maybe Sister Helen has since veered into this territory) that the book did a better job of examining the horrors of the American carceral system and questioning whether life in prison could be a “humane” alternative to execution, or if we have to rethink the very basics of our justice and punitive systems.
Also loved the theology! And thought her reflections on forgiveness were very powerful
Also loved the theology! And thought her reflections on forgiveness were very powerful
March 6, 2018
The author has devoted her life to being a spiritual advisor to people on death row. I have also read two books by her that deal with men on death row that have been unjustly accused. Her books will make you re-think the death penalty. This book has been made into a movie, which I have not seen, but will look for it.
February 8, 2022
A very good, powerful book, considering the contents. I believe more of us should acquaint ourselves with the pitfalls of capital punishment.
January 24, 2023
Extremely heavy and powerful book, I had to put it down and step away a few times. Sister Helen Prejean does a wonderful job of storytelling throughout — humanizing both the perpetrators and the victims of the cases she discusses in her book.
I felt that her inclusion of her work on victims rights towards the end was rushed and I wish she fleshed it out — it almost seemed like she threw that in there to abate the accusation of being overly sympathetic towards those on death row and not sympathetic enough towards victims….a common critique that abolitionists often face, often unfairly.
This book is not preachy or self righteous — it is a straightforward account of her experiences with those on death row and the families, advocates, and law enforcement personnel who are affected by the system. I like that when she *does* blatantly argue against the death penalty, she draws from research, religion, philosophy, science, history, and more…there is something for everybody.
I felt that her inclusion of her work on victims rights towards the end was rushed and I wish she fleshed it out — it almost seemed like she threw that in there to abate the accusation of being overly sympathetic towards those on death row and not sympathetic enough towards victims….a common critique that abolitionists often face, often unfairly.
This book is not preachy or self righteous — it is a straightforward account of her experiences with those on death row and the families, advocates, and law enforcement personnel who are affected by the system. I like that when she *does* blatantly argue against the death penalty, she draws from research, religion, philosophy, science, history, and more…there is something for everybody.
September 2, 2019
Although it did take me a bit to read this book, it was a quick read. I can see why the professor of the FYS class I'm mentoring through the Writing Center picked this piece. It's the perfect companion to Just Mercy, a snapshot of the death penalty in the 80s and 90s but from within the time period itself. It's a heavy book at points, especially with some graphic mention to death and how adamant pro-death penalty believers were, but Prejean pulls no punches at looking at a corrupt justice system that executed criminals but treats the victims just as horribly. Dead Man Walking is harrowing but ultimately hopeful that perhaps some light can be found at the end of a tunnel. It will just take time.
November 13, 2024
Before reading this, I thought I knew my stance on the death penalty but the stories of the two men on death row told by Sister Helen Prejean were so powerful I've since changed my opinion. I learned that factors like race, politics and money all play a significant role in capital punishment. The death penalty is not only unfair and unjust but also inhumane.
March 24, 2026
Sister Prejean is incredible at tangibly describing the death penalty: she blends prose, legal argument, emotion and practical facts into an incredible condemnation of capital punishment. She centers those facing the death penalty while never forgetting the victims and their families. Also Sister Prejean’s impact on the Catholic Church’s changing teaching on the death penalty is unmatched.
July 20, 2024
Hard to know what to say. To state the obvious… heavy, but important content. Sister Helen is amazing and did an amazing job with extremely complex content. Read it if you oppose the death penalty, read if you support it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 798 reviews