‘Dead Man Walking’ No ‘Distortion,’ Authors Claim : Death Row Lawyer Misstates the Case

I write this letter to take exception to Millard Farmer’s damningly inaccurate and misleading Counterpunch article regarding my film “Dead Man Walking” (“Distorting a Dead Man’s Last Wish,” Calendar, Jan. 15).

In his article, Farmer objects to our portrayal of the death row inmate, saying we invented his racism for our own sensational needs. First of all, the character of Matthew Poncelet is not Patrick Sonnier, as Farmer claims, but a composite of the two characters in Sister Helen Prejean’s book, “Dead Man Walking.” I suggest Farmer reread the entire book. Were he to do so, he would read about Prejean’s experience with Robert Willie, who was indeed an “arrogant, swastika-tattooed, racial-invective-spewing, white supremacist.”

It is Willie’s words, as told by Prejean, that bring up the bombing of federal buildings, not our “trendy” invention as Farmer claims. As Farmer was Willie’s lawyer, I find it astonishing that he has chosen to so wantonly ignore the truth in attempting to discredit me and the film.

*

I find it even more shocking because while in pre-production I talked with Farmer and made it clear to him our intention of portraying a composite of the characters of Willie and Sonnier. At the time, Farmer urged me to overlook the specifics of the racism of this character. Given this conversation and Farmer’s direct knowledge of these men, I can only wonder about the true motivation of his article.

Although I’m sure some of the people Farmer has dealt with on death row are not as morally repugnant as the composite character in the film, it seems to me an obvious decision that we should not kill the reformed, the remorseful, the sympathetic. For this same reason we did not make him innocent. What we are attempting to do in this film is raise the more difficult question as to whether any life can be taken, even the contemptible.

Perhaps Farmer should wait a bit before complaining that “Dead Man Walking” is harmful to the cause of death row inmates. Perhaps he should talk to people who have been affected by the film and are thinking about and conversing on a subject long ignored--people on both sides of the issue, from conservative judges to progressive thinkers. This divisiveness, this moral posturing can only hurt everyone involved. I ask him to reconsider his invective and reread the book.