Death Penalty is Back
Charlie Crist is set to begin signing death warrants again now that practices are in place to make the process more humane.
We should care about the way the death penalty is carried out and show some care that murderers don't suffer. After all, such concern separates us from the bad guys.
However, like most liberals with sense, I do believe that allowing murderers to live is an affront to us all. The old argument that poor men of color are singled out doesn't sway me a bit. Let's include all (mostly) men who commit murder. Women, too. Equality is equality, right?
The answer is simply more, not less, truly horrific killers should not be allowed to breathe air. Period.
The death penalty doesn't prevent crime? Well, we know those particular murderers put to death won't be killing anyone else, don't we? I'd even open up the definition of 'heinous crime' to include pedophiles as well. But that's me. I'm an old testament kinda gal.
Last, but not least, victims' families deserve closure. They deserve some peace. After all, they've been through enough.
We all have.
So let's bring it back.
posted by kate @ 5:53 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
I really don't want to be the one to spark the is-it-right-or-is-it-wrong debate, here, though (full disclosure), I lean quite heavily towards it *not* being the right thing to do.
What really struck me was how conflicted that Trib editorial seemed to be, although they try to start off strong, leading with praise for the governor.
"The new process should give the governor - and all Floridians - reassurance that future executions will go off as expected, in as humane a manner as possible."
"...as humane a manner *as possible*?" Look, we're either for torture or against it, and I, as a moderately liberal American, am firmly against it. Treating other humans as less than human is, well, inhuman. No matter if they are terrorists (or we think they're terrorists) or if they're rapists or murderers. It's tough to address, but it *is* the question: can you commit a crime so horrible that you are, in fact, no longer human?
I think you have to agree that it's quite a powerful statement that the American Medical Association forbids doctors from performing executions, and positioned just below that point is the guy who came up with the lethal injection mixture being far too cavalier for my comfort level. "...there will be no question about this business of pain and suffering." Pardon me, but the "question about this business," *is* the business. So much so that our Founding Fathers bothered to make it the Eighth Amendment (as the Trib notes).
Finally, Kate, let me agree with you enthusiastically and wholeheartedly -- victims and the families of victims deserve closure. In fact, once a crime has been committed, I'd argue that it should be all about the victims and their loved ones, not about the criminals. Too often our discourse focuses on the criminals and not the victims, and that's too bad. Again, the open-ended question is, is execution the *only* road to closure for these victims? If it's not, then we clearly can't support the death penalty, no matter how *humane*.
Thanks, Kate.
BJK
I must say now that we've turned comments off to anonymous crazies, the few who do take time to comment absolutely rock. And, for the record, rw - I think rapists should probably lose their units before their lives.
BJK - You hit on some interesting points. One has to be - is the death penalty torture? No it's not. Again, this separates us from the bad guys. Death comes quickly to these monsters and I'm not uncomfortable with the process at all. For me, killing is different than murder. And killing a murderer is justified. As far as I'm concerned.
It must remain humane if it is to continue. And even if a victim's family says "don't kill him", if it's murder, the person should not live.
Well, there's the touchpoint of the whole thing: can death be administered in a totally pain-free way? Medical Examiner Chapman seems to think so, even though he's far too dismissive for my taste. The American Medical Association apparently disagrees with him, and you have to give them some credit on this score.
This issue, for me, follows a little bit the same optimistic (some have said overly-optimistic) logic I follow for abortion, in that we should strive for a society in which we never, every *need* abortion because we've invested so much and done so much towards the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, and until that (utopian?) time, it ought to remain safe and legal.
I feel like it would be hypocritical of me not to follow the same logic for the death penalty, in regards to expressing a desire to see the best and most honorable thing done in the name of sanctity of life (an overused term, stolen by the right-to-lifers, I know). Shouldn't we err on the side of caution, operating under the assumption that we don't have the best possible way to exact the ultimate penalty on someone until we do? And until then, work towards not ever needing the death penalty. Pie-in-the-sky? Maybe. But I'm just egotistical enough to call it noble.
I don't usually foist this story on folks during this discussion, but here you go. I worked, briefly, at a commission within the Department of Justice (the Reno Justice Department, if it matters). It was a great job, and I miss it. Anyway, it afforded me some unique opportunities I'll likely never have again. One of them was to visit a few different prisons.
I've had a number of life-changing experiences, none of them nearly as troubling or traumatic as my visit to prison. I visited a prison on the North Carolina/Virginia border, and the thing that struck me most was the silence. There were no birds, no sounds of people talking or playing. No music, no cars driving by, no ambient noise you take for granted every day. No wind, even. There was no life in that place. The faces I saw proved that.
I tell you this story to say that I think that people who exhaust the rest of their days on this earth in prison are, in no way, "living." Their troubled, awful lives are over -- they merely exist.
I used to be firmly entrenched in the pro-death penalty camp. The thing that has me less convinced these days is the wide margin of error as we've witnessed in recent incidents where verdicts were overturned in light of mistakes or unavailable evidence(DNA for instance.) Perhaps the burden for a death penalty needs to be more than just reasonable doubt or left to more informed jurists than just one of peers. The judicial system itself is flawed in just how long it takes for a capital case to come to climax. It often results in a larger financial burden to the taxpayers and appeals linger on for dozens of years in some cases. In those cases it's hardly a solution from any standpoint as it's not much of a deterrent, provides little more closure than a life sentence and costs far more than life-long incarceration.
I agree that prison is in itself a death sentence and far less expensive than a death penalty case.
However, as far as I'm concerned, someone who has committed a heinous crime has forfeited the right to live. That's what my sense of justice tells me.
So I'm cautious and hesitant - and open to discussion - yet support the death penalty as it stands.
People who commit heinous crimes have forfeited something. But as a friend of mine who is more spiritually (if not theologically) based in his moral character than I am asked me when I posited this theorem said, "to whom, exactly, has the criminal forfeited his life?"
In other words, when we execute a person who has, for example, taken a life, when we execute a murderer, we're not then giving that life to the family and loved ones of the victims. If we could, surely we'd all be pro-death penalty. No question.
My sense is, when we take a life, we take something that wasn't ours to take. In a cold, analytical sort of way, killing is not unlike stealing. What you steal when you murder is a life, someone's love and passion and a father or mother, brother or sister, child. You're stealing years of happy and sad memories, photographs that will never be placed into a scrapbook, holiday cards that will never set on a desk, emails and love notes that will never get filed away in a special folder.
It's the theft of all those things and so much more.
So, if we follow that logic -- which, I accept, you don't have to -- then when the state executes a man (or woman) for murder, isn't it really just more stealing? Maybe the executed had no loved ones, maybe he or she was all alone. But you can break in and steal from people who are all alone, too, take their credit cards and jewelry. Doesn't make it less of a crime.
I'm not trying to convert you, Kate, believe it or not. And in fact, my sense of justice wavers (like many Americans). I believe everything I've written here, but I also have a hard time squaring that with someone like an Osama bin Laden. Even prison seems too good for this loathesome creature.
Thanks.
BJK
People who commit heinous crimes have forfeited something. But as a friend of mine who is more spiritually (if not theologically) based in his moral character than I am asked me when I posited this theorem said, "to whom, exactly, has the criminal forfeited his life?"
In other words, when we execute a person who has, for example, taken a life, when we execute a murderer, we're not then giving that life to the family and loved ones of the victims. If we could, surely we'd all be pro-death penalty. No question.
My sense is, when we take a life, we take something that wasn't ours to take. In a cold, analytical sort of way, killing is not unlike stealing. What you steal when you murder is a life, someone's love and passion and a father or mother, brother or sister, child. You're stealing years of happy and sad memories, photographs that will never be placed into a scrapbook, holiday cards that will never set on a desk, emails and love notes that will never get filed away in a special folder.
It's the theft of all those things and so much more.
So, if we follow that logic -- which, I accept, you don't have to -- then when the state executes a man (or woman) for murder, isn't it really just more stealing? Maybe the executed had no loved ones, maybe he or she was all alone. But you can break in and steal from people who are all alone, too, take their credit cards and jewelry. Doesn't make it less of a crime.
I'm not trying to convert you, Kate, believe it or not. And in fact, my sense of justice on this issue wavers (like many Americans). I believe everything I've written here, but I also have a hard time squaring that with someone like an Osama bin Laden. Even prison seems too good for this loathesome creature.
Thanks.
BJK
Osama bin Laden is an excellent example. And I'd say that if he deserves the death penalty, so do others. Whether someone murders (different from killing as far as I'm concerned) one or three thousand - to victims' families it's all the same. And tragic. And deserves a harsh response.
I think.
However, you do make compelling arguments. So thanks. :-)
Just out of curiosity, for arguments sake, why limit it to heinous murders? If a life is intentionally taken, premeditated, with no disregard, shouldn't the perpetrators life be forfeit? I agree that there is difference between killing and murder, so I am referring to homicide without mitigating circumstance. I still have hard time accepting that an adult who chooses to end the life of another has any chance of life outside of incarceration. How does society balance a life cut short with a life that is merely interrupted? Add to that fact those cases where the victim is a contributing member of society and the perpetrator a career criminal. Why should the guilty ever be allowed to breath free air again(or even take a breath at all for that matter)? I suppose it boils down to the collective morality of the group. Is our society bettered because of our compassion and forgiveness toward criminals or lessened by the tolerance of crime? Only history will judge.
I find the whole "enlightenment" concept of our modern-day America to be underwhelming.
My comment from Sticks:
I start to wonder if I am more for the death penalty in theory than I am in practice. I agree with many people’s sentiments that there are just some people who don’t deserve to continue to breathe.
The issue is the number of people that have been wrongly executed, or who’ve barely escaped execution before being exonerated.
I read someone’s comment (maybe at Kate’s blog) essentially calling for the burden of proof to be overwhelming - a smoking gun - before a death penalty could be called for. I’m all for that.
It’s difficult for me to work out. I do in principle believe there are crimes heinous enough to warrant the death penalty, I’m just not convinced our justice system is in good enough shape to be handing those sentences out.
That said, I’m not crazy about taking the option completely off the table, either. I’d prefer the system get fixed and the option be viable, but in the meantime maybe it’s worth taking it away until we’re sure we’re not putting innocent people to death.
Post a Comment
<< Home