Shepherd of Hills movie

Henry Hathaway directs this first talkie remake of two prior films versions of The Shepherd of the Hills filmed in 1919 and 1928. It's based on Harold Bell Wright's novel; the writers are Stuart Anthony and Grover Jones. It's set in the Ozark mountains among a closely knit group of moonshiners that have been poisoned by hatred.

Matt (John Wayne) is an angry young man because his father abandoned him as a child and left his mother to die. He swears he would kill his father if he ever saw him again. Dani Howitt arrives and treats Jim Lane's (Tom Fadden) gunshot wounds. His daughter Sammy (Betty Field) is appreciative. Howitt aims to settle in the region, but is coldly greeted by Matt. Anyway, Daniel buys Moanin' Meadow for a $1,000, the home of Matt's mother, which angers Matt. Sammy visits Dan and he says that Matt is his son. Later we learn he abandoned the family because he murdered a man and was sent to prison. He's now a reformed man and has come back to make up for his mispent life and to reconcile with his son--to save him from taking the wrong path.

It plays as a Christian parable that relates how kindness can bring love into the world and change things for the better. It's a slow moving film, not the kind the action star Wayne is usually associated with. In its own quiet way it was effective and well-acted, especially by Wayne.

REVIEWED ON 9/10/2005 GRADE: B-

Dennis Schwartz: "Ozus' World Movie Reviews"

© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DENNIS SCHWARTZ

http://www.sover.net/~ozus

The continued condescending, world-weary attitude of the people who are against the death penalty can be extremely tiresome. The fact of the matter is that the death penalty is a necessity for any justice system to be considered effective. For some crimes there simply is no rehabilitation, no penance other than death.

The arguments against the death penalty can be shown to be groundless:

1. The 'innocent man' This is mostly an emotional argument - what makes a man innocently convicted of a crime and executed any more notable than one of the many people killed by automobiles every day - and completely falls on numbers analysis. The overwhelming number of victims of recidivist criminals by far outweighs any reasonable potential count of executed innocents. Strange that majority recidivism in violent crime doesn't bother those anti-death penalty people.

In any case, the 'innocent man' argument is moot because it is a problem with the judicial system, not the penal system (and if innocent deaths really bothered you, we'd ban a lot of stuff before the death penalty - including cars). Similarly any arguments about cost are in fact critiques of the judicial system as well - the sheer slowness of the mostly impotent juggernaught as it limps along the endless appeal trail.

2. Detterence ... or lack thereof. Jail doesn't deter criminals either. You stop crime with education and opportunity. You stop criminals with the judicial/penal system. Logically there is no more effective way to stop behavior than to kill its host. In most cases that would be extreme. So it is reserved for special circumstances - ones which are already very limited, and which are constantly being re-evaluated.

3. The cost of death Also known as 'the life imprisonment alternative'. But does this punishment always fit the crime? Disregard the long-term infeasibility of the idea. Disregard the insult to society of housing and feeding a waste of life until his or her natural death. Disregard the book-writing, the movie deals, the cult popularity. Disregard the family having to see the criminal's face possibly until they die. Disregard all that, and tell me: where is the justice? And who are you to decide that death is not valid punishment?

Obviously these arguments are the straws at which the drowning man frantically clasps. And what brought these people so far out to sea? Simple moral outrage, or personal distaste, with the act of taking human life. Which is not even worth arguing. Because not only is it irrelevant - necessity does not bow to squeamishness - it is also subjective, relative, and impermanent.

You can argue your soapbox position all you want, but I guarantee you that you'd be singing a different tune if a serial child molester was released into your neighborhood and then your daughter went missing:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10208053&BRD=1714&PAG=461&dept_id=73829&rfi=6.

How many times has this kind of thing happened? How many more times must it happen? At what cost moral outrage?

The judicial/penal system is intended to find, arrest, and punish criminals. While doing so it is a necessity that the citizenry - particularly the victims - feel that justice has been done. Otherwise, they'll take the law into their own hands:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/30/neighbor.stabbing.ap

Who can blame them?

You say this: Jail doesn't deter criminals either. You stop crime with education and opportunity.

Thus recognizing that lack of education and opportunity contributes to criminal behavior - yet you still think the death penalty is being applied "justly."

Your arguments are so wrong-headed on so many levels it hurts my brain. It's interesting to see your train of thought. It also makes me deeply sad that people can think as you do.

While I long to see the end of capital punishment in the US (and elsewhere) please don't end it before GWB and his neocon cronies are swung from a rope on the steps of the capitol

"Thus recognizing that lack of education and opportunity contributes to criminal behavior - yet you still think the death penalty is being applied 'justly.'"

Your argument is specious. It is not particularly relevant to the death penalty itself - it's about problems within the judicial system and society itself, see above - and it sets up an impossible condition (perfection) before allowing proper punishment of criminals. Furthermore, there are many other systems which are more intrinsically flawed, and which cause greater harm, that we accept on a daily basis. This is an already deconstructed argument.

"Your arguments are so wrong-headed on so many levels it hurts my brain. It's interesting to see your train of thought. It also makes me deeply sad that people can think as you do."

The sad head-shaking approach? Thank you. Truly that is the best indicator that one's position has been logically demolished. It's like religious people who sign off with "I'll pray for you."

You offer no counter arguments, point out no flaws in my reasoning, and do not even really attempt to discuss the issue.

I'd be sad, too.

indepedent, my response to your numerical arguments(in order): 1)the killing of innocents is a legitimate argument. the point is that perfection is impossible, so if you allow the death penalty you are knowingly participating in murder of innocents. yes this is a problem of the judicial system, but wrongly imprisoned people have a chance of getting out, so life imprisonment is preferable. what i mean is, yes its a problem of the judicial system, but that problem can be partially solved by changing the penal system, and it cant be solved by changing the judicial system. and executing innocents is different from random accidental deaths (as from car accidents). the two are so obviously different i hesitate to even argue the point. one of the two is preventable and you are responsible for, you actually have the choice of eliminating one of the two injustices. your argument is equivalent to shooting someone in the head and saying "so what, death happens all the time".

2) you apperantly agree that deterrence is not a good reason for the death penalty. your argument here is anti-death penalty and does not help your case. and btw, jail does deter criminals. it deters certain crimes that the criminal commits for personal gain, as they have to weigh the gain against the risk. the crimes people are executed for are not this sort of crime.

3)i accept that convicts have less human rights, but taking another's life is really fundamental. killing is always wrong, its just occasionally the lesser of two evils (in other words, in order to justify killing you need to explain what net-benefit there is). the death penalty does not help anything (except, as you point out, it saves money), it is not a necessary evil (like killing someone in self-defense would be). you have not demonstrated what benefit to society there is in the death penalty, other than it saves money and satisfies blood-lust. frankly, i would rather my government not be concerned with the bloodlust sort of justice, i think that is dangerous (especially when our country has a history of lynchings, etc), i would much rather our justice system provide tangible benefits such as reducing crime. as for the money issue, that is legitimate but not nearly enough to convince me. we have enough money to afford not to kill people. end the drug war, end the death penalty, you'll save money (obscene amounts really). currently 64% of our budget goes to the military. if we need to save money, there are many better (both more successful and humane) ways of doing it.

the one pro-death penalty argument that comes close to swaying my opinion is that death may be more humane than life imprisonment (setting aside the issue of the inhumane way the people are often killed). if i had to choose between the two im really not sure what id do, but its very possible id choose death. i guess the reason you didnt mention this argument is you have absolutely no concern for criminals, and cannot imagine switching perspectives. truly i find that disgusting, it is the sort of attitude that denies other's humanity.

Thanks for the mention, Norm!