Dead Man Walking

How might you respond to the charge, often leveled at Sister Prejean, that her advocacy for death penalty abolition is ‘political’ and therefore at odds with her work as a nun? What is her response to this claim, and what do you make of it?

Prejean is never able to establish whether Sonnier was telling the truth when he attributed the rape and murders to his brother. Would greater certainty, either to establish it as true or false, have made any difference? What purpose does the question serve if it never finds a resolution?

How is Prejean able to maintain mostly good relationships with the families of victims, despite their strident disagreements over the justice of the death penalty? Are these relationships in good faith? Why or why not?

Among the many arguments for capital punishment that Prejean encounters in the book, are there any that you find convincing? By contrast, do you find any of Prejean’s arguments unconvincing? Why or why not?

What would it mean in practical terms to make the public more aware of the realities of capital punishment? Do you agree with Prejean’s belief that greater exposure would help turn the public against it?

How would you respond to the guards and wardens who insist that they are just doing their job, that their actions or wishes are at most incidental to the death of the convict? Do you agree with such a sentiment, and if so, what would you say to Prejean, who rejects it?

How does Prejean both use the Bible as a source of moral teaching while rejecting the relevancy of certain passages, such as ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?’ Do you believe that the way she uses the Bible falls into cherry-picking favorable passages and ignoring others? Why or why not?

At the end, Prejean argues that the death penalty takes away from crime-fighting efforts like a strong police force. Given the wave of scandals involving police brutality and discrimination, do you think her argument needs a revision on that count?