Death equals cruelty

[happyhaddock]

Death equals cruelty

OPINION

Laura Rayburn
August 25, 2006

Perhaps you've heard of the old adage, "You are known by the company you keep." I've recently come to realize how true that is. (Don't believe me? Try hanging out with Osama bin Laden for a day and let me know how that goes over with the U.S. government.)

In 2005, four nations were responsible for 94 percent of the world's recorded executions.

China.

Iran.

Saudi Arabia.

And drumroll please ...

The United States of America.

I can hear your whining now. Some of you will say, "China is responsible for over 80 percent of those executions, the United States is a far-behind fourth place with a measly two percent." Right, and the preamble of the U.S. Constitution should actually read:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America and hereby reserve the right to kill us some people who can't seem to get that through their heads."

Or not.

The fact of the matter is that we rank fourth among the nations of the world that regularly execute people.

There was a period of sanity (1972 to 1976) when the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because of the implications of the Eighth Amendment. However, it was reinstated when we came up with more "humane" ways of killing criminals.

Many can and will argue the various pros and cons of capital punishment, but I will simply base my thoughts on this: does the punishment serve its purpose?

The goal of any type of criminal punishment is to create a deterrence of future crimes and incur retribution for past crimes. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 12 percent of those executed were so-called volunteers, meaning that they waived their right to the appeals process that would have most likely extended their lives by a considerable measure. Can we be sure that the death penalty is the worst punishment that society can mete out then? It seems to me that some people would rather die than spend their lives on death row.

What about retribution? Advocates of the death penalty say "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," but I say that it's quite difficult to repay society if you are dead. Can the United States not come up with a better usage for the able-bodied men and women comprising the death row population than "resident grave filler?"

I could be wrong. Perhaps this is simply the government's attempt to properly embrace Darwin's ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest, which may be more likely given that it's such great fun to get to decide who's fittest and who's not.

After all, how many of you were glued to the television sets during the O.J. Simpson, Andrea Yates and Scott Peterson murder trials? And who isn't waiting with bated breath to find out how the JonBenet Ramsey case plays out and who has to die for the crime? It may be 2006 and we may not execute people in the town square anymore, but it all retains entertainment value all the same, which makes it all seem a little cruel and unusual to me.

[skyloom]

happyhaddock said:

It may be 2006 and we may not execute people in the town square anymore, but it all retains entertainment value all the same, which makes it all seem a little cruel and unusual to me.

Entertainment value. That's an interesting insight with more than a grain of truth to it. Are we in the U.S. a "cruel and unusual" people?

[happyhaddock]

skyloom said:

Entertainment value. That's an interesting insight with more than a grain of truth to it. Are we in the U.S. a "cruel and unusual" people?

I can't see any value in the death penalty except as a form of entertainment. It appeals to the basest instincts in society. It's a useful tool for incompetent and lazy prosecutors and for corrupt politicians, but is a waste of resources and has no, or a negative, effect on crime. Those most deserving of it are rarely sentenced to it. It is arbitrary in the extreme.

[legallybrunette]

True that the US at least allows its convicts to appeal their death sentences, a 'liberty' not granted to the unfortunate of the other countries listed (in reality if not in theory, at least) but those countries cannot presume to lead the world in democracy. The US does presume to lead the world in democracy and humanitarianism. As such, it surely has a greater obligation to set an example for the rest of the countries of the world.
It's like comparing the slaying of another with a knife dipped in disinfectant and properly sharpened, to one using a blunt and dirtied knife ; the end result is the same, whatever the manner of tool used.

[Maggie]

Does anybody know how/why the death penalty was reinstated in 1976? Who was it that got that ball rolling again anyway?

btw- thanks for posting the article Happy- I agree with everything the author said.

[skyloom]

barbaraweaver said:

Does anybody know how/why the death penalty was reinstated in 1976? Who was it that got that ball rolling again anyway?

The Court had ruled against capital punishment because it was applied unfairly and unevenly. States scrambled to revise their laws on capital punishment so as to eliminate the specifics that the Court was unhappy about. Then they went back with their new and revised laws that took care of the problems the Court had cited.

[skyloom]

happyhaddock said:

I can't see any value in the death penalty except as a form of entertainment. It appeals to the basest instincts in society. It's a useful tool for incompetent and lazy prosecutors and for corrupt politicians, but is a waste of resources and has no, or a negative, effect on crime. Those most deserving of it are rarely sentenced to it. It is arbitrary in the extreme.

Well... entertainment is an unusual word.

But there does seems to be some sort of catharsis that some people experience when a capital sentence is carried out... some feeling that justice has been served and once again, all's right with the world. That's the part I just don't get at all.

[happyhaddock]

barbaraweaver said:

Does anybody know how/why the death penalty was reinstated in 1976? Who was it that got that ball rolling again anyway?

skyloom said:

The Court had ruled against capital punishment because it was applied unfairly and unevenly. States scrambled to revise their laws on capital punishment so as to eliminate the specifics that the Court was unhappy about. Then they went back with their new and revised laws that took care of the problems the Court had cited.

And yet to this day it is applied unfairly and irrationally. What really happened is that the SCOTUS held its nose and allowed it to happen to appease the blood lust of the population and the ambitions of politicians despite the clear evidence that it is used in violation of the constitution.

[skyloom]

happyhaddock said:

And yet to this day it is applied unfairly and irrationally. What really happened is that the SCOTUS held its nose and allowed it to happen to appease the blood lust of the population and the ambitions of politicians despite the clear evidence that it is used in violation of the constitution.

I imagine the Justices would like to see an end to capital punishment, and in fact several have said they would.

Some good signs are that the U.S. no longer executes people who are mentally retarded or people who committed crimes before they turned eighteen.

If we all can get the Court to prohibit executions of people who are severely mentally ill or were severely mentally ill when they committed their crimes, that would be outstanding!