Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Humane Executions?
It hath often been said, that it is not death, but dying which is terrible.
--Henry Fielding, Amelia
The question everyone is asking is whether anything is happening in the United States of America other than a two year long marathon to decide who will be the next president of the United States, news of each milestone being covered as though it were the determining factor in establishing the winner. As we draw closer to the time when there will be an event that actually determines that fact, news of all else is virtually eclipsed by news of what was, was not, is, is not, will be, may be, or won't be insofar as it affects those seeking the presidency. I am happy to report that there is other news even though it is not altogether new news. It concerns the death penalty. And it is a subject with which two countries that treasure human rights above all else-the United States and China-are dealing.
In the United States the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 5 addressing the important question, simply stated, of whether being executed by a three drug lethal injection is more likely to hurt than being put to death by a one drug injection because of the protocol accompanying the injection. If it does, it may be unconstitutional and if it doesn't, it isn't.
The people who are best able to answer that question are those who have received the injections and they are unable to give an opinion. Next best, however, are lawyers and Supreme Court Justices and it is the lawyers who presented the arguments as to why the three-drug injection is apt or not apt to hurt, and the Justices who will decide whom to believe.
As the Supreme Court case demonstrates, many people in the United States are concerned about the pain inflicted on those being executed notwithstanding Justice Antonin Scalia's sensitive observation during oral argument that there's no constitutional requirement that executions employ the "least painful method possible." Some medical evidence suggests that a single barbiturate is easier to administer and less likely to cause pain than the three-drug approach now commonly used. The one drug method is used by the humane society in Kentucky and other states when euthanizing animals and is reportedly painless yet effective. According to Adam Liptak of the New York Times, however, one of the objections to switching to the single drug method employed on animals is that it is employed on animals. Death penalty proponents think that human beings are better than animals and should not be put to death the same way animals are put to death. It devalues the entire procedure.
While the Supreme Court contemplates the question, China has announced it, too, is trying, to use Chief Justice Roberts' words from the oral argument, to have a procedure that produces a "humane death." Traditionally China has executed those who have earned the right to be put to death by one shot to the back of the head. Mindful of the sensitivities of the survivors, those being shot have been asked to open their mouths when the shot is fired so that the bullet can pass through the head and out the mouth without disfiguring the victim.
Early in the New Year, Jiang Xingchang, vice-president of the Supreme People's Court announced that lethal injection was more humane than the shot to the back of the head and would eventually replace the latter method of execution. It is already being employed in some places in China although the formula is the same three-drug formula that the Supreme Court is considering. Thanks to a relatively new invention, however, death by lethal injection has been made much more pleasant as well as efficient, in China.
According to a report in USA Today, in 2004 authorities began acquiring a new death van designed by Kang Zhongwen in which executions by lethal injection take place. Mr. Kang says that their introduction shows that China "promotes human rights." The vans enable executions to take place in the communities where the condemned lived thus making it more convenient for family members who want to attend, a truly thoughtful touch. Mr. Kang was quoted in USA Today as saying of the van: "I'm most proud of the bed. It's very humane, like an ambulance." He then shows how the bed in the van slides out so the victim can lie down and when secure, be powered into the van. All in all, it seems like a highly civilized approach to state sponsored death. Whether China will be influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion of three drugs vs. one drug only time will tell.
Now you readers who have wasted two minutes reading the foregoing can go back to the internet to see if the polls that are frequently wrong but slavishly reported and commented on, show any change in the standings of the candidates.
—Christopher Brauchli; brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu For political commentary see his web page, http://humanraceandothersports.com.
66 Comments so far
Show AllI agree PJD. As to the punishment, it should fit the crime, __ as much as possible. We shouldn't give long sentences for those who are caught committing minor drug offenses, but we should give them for premeditated murder, or for sexual abuse of a child for examples. Those who commit henious crimes, should never be allowed to congregate, or associate with other prisoners or anyone else. __ If the foo shits, wear it.
Timothy McVeay wanted to die, I am sure he may have wished to not have to live a life in prison, in solitary, thinking daily, of all of those innocent children he murdered and maimed for life. I personally was not satisfied that he was executed, death was too good for him and his kind.
And the word "closure", there is no such thing when a loved one has been murdered. The family or close friends may have a feeling of it's over, finished and revenge is sweet, but actual closure? __Never.__ the wound may heal to a point, over time the pain eases, but it never fully heals,__ never.
Putting someone in endless solitary confinement is torture. In many countries, this is outlawed right along with the death penalty as inhumane.
Humane execution? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
There is no correlation between a pet owner who euthanizes a beloved animal when their pain has made their lives unbearable, and a society executes another human being as punishment for crimes.
Capital punishment is evil on its face and should be abolished. Period.
VoxClamatis,
The death penalty may not have an external deterrent effect, but recidivism rates amongst the executed fall to zero (except in the movies).
That said, I am strongly anti-death penalty also - "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean "guilty with Probability=1", even when the defendant is Jeffrey Dahmer (sp?).
So even if one was to accept the right of the State to execute someone who may not agree that they are bound by the State's laws (having signed no contract indicating same), there is the issue of the immutability of the sentence should exculpatory evidence ever come to light.
It is almost impossible to generate a facts situation where the accused is guilty with Probability=1 (even if a stadium full of people watch a gruesome murder performed in front of them, there can never be 100% infallible proof of mens rea since the perpetrator may be legally incapable of forming criminal intent).
Like many, I struggle with the thought of how to deal with people who while in general resembling a normal human in all biological respects, are nonetheless capable of perpetrating (and often incapable of resisting the urge to perpetrate) the most vile acts towards other humans.
My 'gut' says that we ought not extend to them, the rights that we extend towards 'genuine' humans... but how do we decide? Do we assume that someone who has an episode of preternatural cruelty is irredeemable?
Leave aside that the gut is a bad place to make policy, as shown by George III (I: Geo. Washington... II: Geo. Bush Sr... Shrub is the new George III - what syncronicity).
A good example (folks have spoken about pets, so I go there now) is the Rottweiler shown on French TV yesterday. He mauled to death a 2 year old child; it took him ten seconds. There had never been any aggression issues with the animal, and as he sat in a cell he looked like the nicest dopey-est big lug you ever saw. Is he irredeemable?
Perhaps there is someting in the theory you relate regarding ritual sacrifice - it certainly jibes with the comportment of Freepers as it relates to the Geo. III's War on Coloured Folks With Oil. In that respect, the Saudi practice mentioned (beheading in the public square) is actually less hypocritical.
Personally, I think that parasitic human-impersonators like Dick Cheney need loads of garmonbozia to sustain them - and it is much easier to create a world full of of psychic pain than it is to try and broaden the reach of happiness.
Cheers
GT
France
http://marketrant.blogspot.com
Right-on, KEM
I am anti the death penalty as barbaric no matter how it is done, but if we can euthanise animals humanely -- I've always been with my pets when it has been done to see them out with someone they love nearby -- I don't understand why it can't be done with humans -- if we must do it.
The death penalty is just one more example of America's barbarianism.
In a country where we euthanize thousands of stray, unwanted or dangerous animals per day, apparently without lots of animal rights activists and caring vets observing the animals enduring torturous lingering pain in that process, it's hard to imagine how so many states adopted a three-drug process for human executions that apparently does have this risk--observed with some frequency. One would think we could have employed better science from day one. It's not hardly like no one could figure out how to do it.
That aside, a good part of the other debate about a death penalty has morphed from whether it's morally right for the state to take a life, to whether we ought to end capital punishment because it's too expensive for society to pay prosecuters, public defenders, juries, and judges through multiple levels of appeal.
This argument insists it's just perhaps cheaper to keep capital offenders in prison for life including end-of-life medical care in the prison system, plus that you can always let them back out with society paying them money for their "trouble" in the event new evidence later proves them to have been innocent all along.
I won't predict where the Supreme Court will go on this, or how many of the issues they'll really address in a ruling. But it's a curious coincidence that the same Court in the same term will be also considering citizens' rights to carry guns that can enable on-the-spot death penalties perpetrated by criminals and/or by non-criminal citizens acting in self defense.
Far better to put those, who may indeed deserve the death penalty in our opinion, in soitary confinement, allow them to live their days in sorrow for that they had decided to do. For if we kill them, regardless of their crime or crimes, we have lowered ourselves to their standard of human life.
We also must keep in mind, that our system of justice, has placed many in prison for life, or on death rows, who have now been proven beyond any doubt, by use of DNA, to be totally innocent of any crime. During the past few years, more than 50 prisoners have been released from death rows, who were NOT guilty of any crime.
There is NO humane method of execution, and in my mind, it would be more humane to kill by a firing squad, than to strap a person to a gurney and allow them to observe needles placed into their veins and know that poison will soon be dripping into their blood stream. That would be even more cruel, for those who had NEVER committed a crime. __It happens.
A discussion on how to kill people is ludicrous. The US is one of only a few civilized (hah!)countries in the world that continues this practice of legalized murder.
Abolish capital punishment once and for all!!
Disgusting...
Death penalty proponents think that human beings are better than animals and should not be put to death the same way animals are put to death. It devalues the entire procedure.
**what a laugh. So the death penalty proponents feel that the most despised murderer is still superior in value to an innocent non human?
Just got to love warped humanity's sense of ethics.
But then, the word humane is a perversion.
It implies that to be kind and nice is to be humane or "human," and the reverse is to be cruel and "inhumane"--which is another word for non human.
Non humans are by nature crueler than humans? Another example of warped human thinking. I can spend all day citing examples of the extreme torture and sadism that only humans are capable of.
As for animal rights activists and non human animal euthanasia, actually groups like Peta are against pet ownership/ the companion animal industry. It is very destructive form of slavery. The answer is to require huge registration fees for pet breeders like some towns have done--which radically reduces the number being killed(though its better than selling them to animal research labs as sometimes happens).
Hi FUNECONS. I believe the word, or term, "torture", when applied to solitary confinement is not appropriate. "Harsh" is more suitable.
Punishment should fit the crime. Children are punished for misdeeds, with restrictions, stand in the corner, or loss of an allowance, a fine if you will. Adults also are punished for misdeeds, traffic violations are a good example. The more serious the offense, the higher the fine or restrictions of their driving lisence. A civil society must have laws and punishments to act as deterrance to crimes, or violation of necessary rules and laws. I believe you may agree with that.
So, let us have an analogy: A man has a dispute with a police officer and in a rage of anger, shoots and kills the policeman. The state has no death penalty. The man is given a fair trial, found by a jury to be guilty and a judge sentences him to 50 years to life in prison which is his punishment and it sends a message, that the punishment is a deterrant to murder.
Once in prison, he lives in a two person cell, has television, a radio, reading materials, access to a telephone and allowed to have visitors, gifts, mail, and is given a job in the kitchen where he earns a small wage and is allowed to purchase items from the prison store, pens, paper, candy, favored magazines, postage stamps, soaps and such. He plays first base on a softball team and has friends. He has decent meals and for what he has done, he's got it pretty good, luckily for him he didn't shoot the cop in Texas.
Now, in the same state, we have a man who has raped, tortured and then murdered, several young women and young boys for his warpoed sexual pleasure. He is finally caught, is found to be legally sane and is given a fair trial. he's found by a jury to indeed be guilty, he admitted his crimes and even gloried in committing them, showed where 27 bodies of his victems were buried. he states he will continue to do the same things if ever given the opportunity. The judge sentences him to life in prison, the most severe penalty available.
Now tell us FUNECONS, should he be the cell mate of the cop killer? Would that be a deterrant for serial killers, or for those who are not, but may have such thoughts? Would the punishment fit the crime, balance the scales of justice? I think not.
There is nothng too severe in the form of incarcination for such an evil person. Solitay is not torture, it may be self torture for the scum who well deserves to have to live alone with themselves. I would allow them no privilages, just sit in their small cell, 23 hours a day, every day, until they die. No TV, no radio, no writing materias, no books, just three decent meals a day, a bed, a toilet and a sink. One hour a day in an exercise yard, all alone, and a shower.
Just live and think of what they have done. All alone. __Torture? __ I will accept that deterrance and just puishment for such crimes, for whatever you may term it.
Amen, KEM, and most of the others who have posted blogs to this article. I remember (not as well as I'd like) the line that the Mennonites put out, something like: "why do we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?"
I've been listening to Verdi's Macbeth as sung by the Met this afternoon. The woman who sings Lady Macbeth says that washing her hands is not enough when she's finished singing the role. She has to go home and take a perfumed bath and just sit in it 'til the water gets cold.
Too bad those deciding this momentous matter aren't required to sit in a cold bath before coming to the court.
Our "eternal friend" and Number One Terrorist Financier employs the best method of all:
"Sunday's execution brought to 136 the number of people beheaded in the (Saudi Arabian) kingdom this year (2007)..."
Mostly on Fridays, live in front of a studio audience in the public square. Not only would we save tens of dollars in lethal drug costs, the pay-per-view revenues would be record-setting!
Wasn't it James Clavell who whose interview with Bill Moyers just aired again recently? He was at that time getting ready to write a book on the death penalty. His theory of it (and mine - I'm an active dp abolitionist) is that the dp is a residual form of human sacrifice, nothing more dignified than a pure expression of cruelty. Deterrence arguments have no statistical support, nor do economic arguments or moral arguments. It quickly comes down to pure revenge, and its bogus justification using cherry picked biblical passages. Once all those rationales and fraudulent moral positions are swept aside we are left with the ugly and unblinking fact that down in the swarmy, dark underbelly of the human condition lies something that revels in the death and suffering of others. When we intuit it in ourselves we tend to look away quickly, put lipstick on it, change the subject. Because we choose to leave it in the dark, it is free to remain the cause of all murder and simulated murder - all war, all necrophilia, all boxing matches, all trophy hunting, all prisoner abuse, all degradation and torture, all executions. It is nothing less than the fly in the ointment, the troll under the bridge, Mr. Death himself. Our thinking about it includes some of the most devious and twisted argumentation the human mind has ever concocted, because as obviously savage and brutal as it is, our collective love of it is the last thing we are willing to give up.
Hi KELMER. The problem of course is, hundreds are put into prison for life, many on death rows awaiting execution, or have been "executed", who have been found by a jury of their peers, to be "absolutely" guilty, "beyond any reasonable doubt" and they are actually Not guilty of any crime.
Of course once they are strapped to that gurney, or locked in the gas chamber, or face the firing squad in Utah, it is too late for any to prove their innocence. Then, we as a society are guilty, __ or are we not? ___ And house pets have nothing whatsoever to do with that type of situation. Having to have a pet or any animal put down is never easy for any decent person. It is not the same thing as executing a human as a means of punishment, that is revenge, not an attempt to deter crime.
The problem in the past has been that "life" rarely meant life. The murderer of my cousin's son got "life" and spent a little under seven years in prison.
Here in my town this week, a 24 year old girl was grabbed while out hiking by a 61 year old man. He admitted to holding her captive and raping her for three days before cutting her head off. I have no wish to have people like this out on the street again to prey on other peoples daughters- maybe mine.
! Let's abolish the death penalty !
Although we must continue to ignore the hidden ceremony that takes place behind the trappings and drapes covering Geo the 1stler & inferior's fascination and deeply felt _needs_ to permit human sacrifice -- or we risk loss of our gov't's leaders.
Not to worry, as Alfred E. (and Adolf would say too), they practice these rites of wrongness only upon their own kin, otherwise the blood sacrifice is meaningless torture. Although this is entertainment and pleasant for their sick blood-lust, it does not add to their wicked power to dominate mere mortals (as taught by Alesiter Crowley, the 1stler's likely father-in-law)
I totally agree with you on those types of deals BLIGH. A life sentence should mean a life sentence, or state 99 years and no parole. That could be a federal law I could live with
What about the prisoners that WANT to be executed?
Those who would compare killing animals humanely with "killing humans humanely" seem to have misplaced a substantial part of their reasoning faculties somewhere.
I seriously doubt most animals awaiting their killing are anticipating, and suffering anguish from, their scheduled death. But in the case of humans, due to their unique language and ability to envision future-time, they are perfectly aware of the exact date and time of their death and no doubt experience enormous anguish as the days count down the execution.
Such anguish that a physically healthy person must experience when facing a certain, scheduled death is clearly a form a torture, possibly in excess to that even a murder victim gets subjected to. Thus, execution is _inherently_ a cruel and unusual punishment in light of modern day psychology and morality.
As far as someone who wants to be executed, well that is a perfectly expected cognitive strategy to take to make the anticipation of one's own death a little more tolerable, by giving an illusion of control over the matter.
And for those who who argue for the death penalty through accounts of grisly murderers, if find such arguments completely beside the point. The murderer's acts are not the issue - of course they were immoral and repulsive. It is OUR acts, or the acts by our state governments in our name, that are the issue.
The death penalty is just revenge. It's an expensive indulgance of small minded people. Doing something useful for humanity, in prison or not, is better. Rehab anyone? I will make an exception for our elected officials who we hold to a higher standard. They know better.
¿ redemption, forgiveness, atonement ?
NAH, revenge is all that matters
to shallow vindictive and shortsighted wonks
Can anyone name a country that initiated a war of aggression that didn't concurrently sanction capital punishment?
CP embodies the penultimate expression of failure in modern systems of governence: those systems that were intended to protect are used to crudely avenge or worse, indifferently dispose of inconvenient anomalies that arise chiefly because of flaws in the chosen systems.
Bhutan?
Samski: Penultimate means next to last. You meant to say ultimate.
Use quintessential, as the 5th essence is beyond mere physicality = the unmanifest
It's the BURGERS:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
Humane Executions?
Talk about an oxymoron! There is no such thing as a humane execution. Deliberately putting an end to any human life is as diametrically opposite "humane" as anything possibly could be.
Whom would Jesus execute? You don't have to be the least bit religious or any kind of biblical scholar to know that Jesus wouldn't execute anyone. Thus any so-called "Christian" dealth penalty proponent is a walking oxymoron and patently un-Christian.
If killing is wrong, then killing is wrong. Period. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" does any self-styled believer not understand? Oh ye of little faith.
Here's something secular to think about: If a killer is in prison for life, not only do they have lots of time to contemplate the error of their ways, but society knows where they are. If someone is executed by the state, not only are they let off easy -- set free, really -- but society no longer knows where they are. What if reincarnation is real and they could just come right back with their old attitude because they didn't have the time to contemplate the error of their ways?
Don't tell me you know that doesn't happen, because you don't know.
VOXCLAMANTIS: I appreciate and generally agree with your feedback. Ours is a planet of manifest diversity, and while each of us has many of the same core qualities, it's the way we play the strings of our instruments that differs dramatically. I've had moments of jealousy in my life, and some ugly thoughts flash by; but the difference of acting on those and taking a deep breath, maybe doing exercise, getting into water, meditating, laughing, crying, writing in my journal... i.e. processing those distressing feelings and related thoughts is the chosen way to channel the negativity. MILLIONS of people use these and related devices. As to the question what components malfunction to cause a serial killer, the typical psychological frame turns to the childhood environment and conditioning; and I'd agree that it certainly factors into the mix. But metaphysics suggest that souls carry levels of evolution based on activities expressed in former lifetimes, and how much the soul grew on account of these exposures and actions.
In movies there's so often the theme where the sexually free/loose woman gets murdered that it definitely speaks to a Judeo-Christian twisted "garden of eden" basis of original sin notion. This plot device is so common that it's taken for banal. To those persons mentioned above who lost some notches in their stream of what should have been evolutionary development, these types of movie images certainly hit their aggression buttons. Many serial killers have reported that porn and violent media have played a role in unleashing their darker instincts.
So I agree we ALL have these components, but "healthy" people have added a lot more to their psychic repertoire, and/or learn how to work out the negative emotions the way skilled athletes work muscles. Personally, I believe genuine rehab is possible; however, there are (now I speak as the astrologer) certain charts and the people who enact their particular "matrix" qualities, that challenge the very notion of plausibility with respect to rehabiltation.
We must preserve the death penalty so it may be used on the likes of Bush/Cheney if they are indicted, tried and convicted of war crimes.
We have Robert S. McNamara awaiting indictment, too.
I am a Vietnam Combat Veteran. I did not run and hide. Those Judas Goats like Bush/Cheney should pay for the life time of pain they caused the soldiers, their families, the community and mostly the victims in South East Asia who suffered the most.
Indict them, try them, punish them, and take their property as restitution to the victims.
Isn't McNamara dead? That poor SOB was so intelligent, he couldn't keep up with his own mind. Just imagine, he micro-managed the entire Vietnam war from Washington, practicaly all by himself.
He selected targets for hundreds of fast movng aircraft by the minute, all over the place, both north and south Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, gave orders if bombs could be dropped and what types of ordanace could or could not be used if he authorized it. He was a blithering madman.
Seriously, he was playing the ultimate video kill game, and if he hadn't been so important, so utterly brilliant, he would have been committed to an insane aslymn. Half of the F-105 fighter bombers ever built, were shot down in Vietnam. A record that was not even approached by the Japanese Zero fighters durng WW-2. There was a man who was a genuine WMD, a Rambo in a suit and tie. Cheney, Rove, and Connie must have read his book. Uhhhhh, George don't read.
KEM PATRICK. Having been in the "HOLE" for one month, I can tell you it is something you would perhaps like to experience for the sake of knowledge. After one time in the hole, you would make every effort to not return.
It's not 23 hours but 24. It's dark and there is no bed to sleep on. There is no shower.
I am not criticising you KEM, but I have spent some time in prison, and I have never been to a place such as you described. But then, maybe you were referring to minimum security prisons, which are more like summer camps.
Having said that, I must say that I too - and other inmates - share your feelings. If you are a sexual offender - especialy of a minor - may God help you because the guards will make sure such a person is in the general population until that offender ends up in the prison infirmary. Then, this person will be moved to the "SHU" or security housing unit.
Some people are scum, as you said. But the system has its flaws, and a good number of innocent people end up on death row.
I believe the best alternative is life imprisonment, and if evidence surfaces freeing the accused during the time in prison, then an innocent person will not have died. The amenities you spoke of are not accurate when talking about maximum security prisons. The guards do their best to make your life as miserable as possible. And that's fair enough.
INTERESTING POSTINGS: KEM (1:32 PM), RJ HUNTINGTON, GEOFFREY TRANSOM.
VOXCLAMITUS: The premise of what is constituted by the use of the word WE is destructive and inaccurate. There are plenty of human beings who have risen above the reflex of vengeance to recognize the shared web of humanity, as experienced through the ideal and practice of, "Whatsoever you do unto the least of these..." it all does come back around, you know, that pesky law of karma. Some of us recognize the fundamental law of spiritual economy at work in its inviolate premise, and act accordingly.
funeocons January 12th, 2008 1:57 pm...
Ssshhhhhh.. According to KEM_PATRICK, solitary confinement for life is completely acceptable because K_P obviously believes, primarily, in revenge.
If a person is proven CONCLUSIVELY guilty of a crime that carries the death penalty, then, humanity of the judicial system apart, IV injection IS the most humane method that can be applied under such circumstances.. To suggest otherwise is to know nothing of modern pharmacology and anaesthesia..
PS KEM_PATRICK is actually full of self contradictory sophistry.. Quite a talent really..
Geoffrey Transom
A lot of these dilemmas about what should be done with people who are not redeemable or who do things that are evil beyond belief or who can not be said to be fully human can be put into better perspective if we frame the death penalty issue as more about us than about them. Here's a really simple take on it: It is firmly established that society has a right and an obligation to protect itself from predatory people. Less firm is society's right or ability to judge whether anybody deserves to live or die, and in fact a great many wrongs are committed when we rush to condemnation generally. Fortunately we don't need to make those moral judgments in dealing with criminals, but only the determination that they are a menace to society or not. People can be locked up without being expressly punished, that is, without introducing the idea that society is getting even with them for being evil bastards. Prisons, ideally, should be about two things only: isolation and rehabilitation. Those who can be redeemed should be redeemed. Those who can not should be kept where they can not harm the rest of us. Issues of retributive justice are beyond our wisdom and the state should leave them alone. We have victims advocacy groups for grief and anger management, but exacting our of pound of flesh from the bad guy is a slippery slope and a false satisfaction. The sentencing option of life without parole (often not communicated to juries) takes care of the recidivism problem in the worst cases.
Siouxrose
I've gotten in trouble about this "we" business before. I try, maybe more than I should, to speak inclusively about the human condition. It is an effort to avoid the posture that I and my present company (CD posters for example) are a bastion of enlightenment and that it is those others, the warmongers and executioners and dumb people, who constitute the problem. I think there might be a hidden error in the automatic wish to see the evils of the world as nothing more than the behavior of some group of evildoers, whom we then identify and excoriate. It's that kind of simplistic scapegoating that we abhor in the neocons, and we have seen that "rounding up the terrorists" not only doesn't work but doesn't frame the question of "terrorism" in a way that allows us to understand it. Having said that, I'll admit that I can't rise above it myself. I do think of you and I and CD generally as a relative bastion of enlightment or I wouldn't hang out here. But we should be mindful when speaking of the dark imps that live in the control rooms of our psyches, that we all have them, and that the difference between we moral folks and the bad guys is that we recognize them and work consciously to steer by other lights.
THERZAL and I have debated this same issue prior to this, he/she obviouly does not care for me in any way whatsoever. I accept that as a distinct compliment.
Yes, For cetain horrific crimes, I do feel that solitary for life is acceptable, not the 'HOLE' as HYBRIDOMA described. The Green River Killer in Oregon, a man who tortured, raped and killed 47 young girls, and perhaps as many as 70 it is believed, killed them for his warped sexual pleasures, was sentenced to exactly the life sentence I previously described, as did Timothy McVeay while awaiting his execution for just two examples. They were confined in a small cell, 23 hours a day, one hour a day of exercise, a shower, three decent meals and no other privelages. That type of a sentence is designed as a deterrant __ and the punishment fits the crime. It is as harsh as it should be legally be. If they don't like the punishment, __ don't do the crime.
Solitary is not designed to be revenge, killing the convicted most certainly is revenge and it has been well proven execution does work as a deterrance. __THERZAL __ supports the death penalty, for any who have been proven beyond any doubt to be guilty of murder or other capital crimes. He/she fails to acknowledge, that type of PROOF has put many on death row who are totally innocent and we have executed innocent people because of faulty, rock solid, PROOF. They were absolutely guilty. ZAP! __ Oops!! Sorry, shit happens.
Therzal and I disagree totally about the death penalty, but he/she attacks me personally for my opinions on the issue and it is well established by those who know me here, that I do not fit the catagory of a soplist, far from it. THERZAL does.
HYBRIDOMA. I have no idea where you served time or for what crime. Your HOLE you described, could be described as torture and reminds me of the movie Cool Hand Luke, a story which I am sure, was taken from real life in the Georgia chain gangs. That type of jailing should be outlawed.
On the flip side of the coin, there are prisoners in many prisons, who have committed first degree murder, who are confined in very decent living conditions considering what cime they have committed. They have all of the comforts of many homes, less the beer, wine, cheeze and sexual pleasure with their mate. Even that is allowed in some prisons with privelaged visiting sessions. It depends entirely upon which state one may be incarcinated. I do not believe some offenders, should be allowed to have the same types of privelages as the ordinary full moon, hot Saturday night, one time murderer.
For example, you don't want to go to jail in Maricopa County, Arizona and that's just a tent city jail, not prison. Some prisons are very nasty for any and for any crime they have committed. Some are not so bad, one should be careful where they rob a 7-11, or a bank, carjack, or beat up an old lady and snatch her purse.
Some agree we should put some people away in a prison for life. The arguent or debate is, what type of cell and privelages should be allowed. I have my opinon on the issue and evidently many judges, prison wardens, elected officials, citizens, and those who manage such facilites, have the same opinion I have.
There is no logical or sensible reason for anyone to get nasty over a difference of opinion. I often strike back at one such as THERZAL, but I am trying to be a bit nicer with the idiots who sometimes blog here and so will not write what I think of him /her. I'll try wonderment and pity instead.
Ron: No. Used as intended. Wars of aggression are the ultimate.
Kem: Bhutan? After we'd invaded and removed their death penalty, it became the model state of civility, and an shining example to the world.
KEM PATRICK. You are entirely correct. I served time in Rahway Prison, NJ. in the 70's. I am not disagreeing with you. I value your opinion. I only wanted to share my personal experience.
I go into jails, well, used to, so that I could teach and help inmates. I now live in Vietnam. Our present system - death penalty aside - is all about punishment and not reform.
I won't go on because it doesn't apply to the issue at hand. Again, I am against the death penalty, even though my blood may be boiling at the crime commited. We must not reduce ourselves to their level.
Thanks KEM and keep goin'
Very sinncerely, greg
KEM: I ROBBED A PHARMACY
You naughty boy.
I worked with a man who had been fired as a prison guard in New Jersey, for breaking a prisoners nose and then he didn't get any medical treatment for the guy. New Jersey prisons are not good.
KemPatrick - in your last comment you raise another issue worth canvassing: the fact that the incarceration system is, by and large, operated by people who are not the ones you would choose if you were interested in rehabilitation.
If a person is to be deprived of his liberty, it ought not be in a country club, but it also ought not be in an environment where the overseers are as sadistic and as savage as the average detainee (perhaps worse than the average, in fact, since most people incarcerated in the US are there for small-time drug offences).
I watched a program last night in which Louis Theroux went into San Quentin; he interviewed a guy who was 34 years old and who had only spent two years OUT of jail since his 11th birthday. He is now serving a life sentence without parole.
While in no way excusing his crimes, it crossed my mind that if I spent 20 of the past 22 years in a brutal and brutalising system, I would probably be 'damaged goods' as this fellow was; you cannot expect such a person to have typical bourgeois values.
VoxClamantis - it's not clear to me that 'society' protects its members from predatory people. All it does is try to identify predatory people after the fact, and hurt them in retribution for their acts. If society genuinely had a prophylactic approach, Cheney and Bush would both have been incarcerated when they first showed signs of incipient psychotic megalomania: they have killed more people, in more grotesque ways, than all the serial killers in US. they have also been responsible for the psychological darkening of yet another generation of US veterans (let's not pretend that these economic refugees are 'heroes' - 99% of them are doing the only job they can get, and 80% of them like the idea of killing stuff and could SPELL 'liberty').
Note - I am not advocating locking up children who display potential psychopathy: that would be utterly indefensible and a grotesque 'solution' to the problem that we have some folks who jest ain't wired up right. I'm just pointing out that the criminal 'justice' system is not a preventive system. If the death penalty has no disincentive effect, in what way can incarceration be said to be anything other than ex post facto retribution?
The US has a larger prison population than China, and the largest per capita prison population on the planet (in fact the largest per capita prison population in history, if memory serves). In other words, they are doing something wrong.
Cheers
GT
France
http://marketrant.blogspot.com
KEM. Yes, I have seen many things such as that...but for now, it's on to the next day!
To Geoffrey Transom. You are so correct. Most prison guards are even sicker than a great percentage of the prisoners. Many are very sadistic and take pleasure in abusing prisoners. One time, a guy was pepper sprayed and after, was told to go use some water to wash out his eyes. Well, anyone who knows about pepper spray, adding water to it creates even more pain. The guards laughed and were having a grand time. In fact, most prison guards are undereducated, ignorant people. I remember another guard who couldn't do head counts because he couldn't count passed the number 20. The present system is and has been a failure for a long time. Probably 60 to 70 percent of those locked up are of absolutely no threat to anyone. They are locked up because of the other failed war: the war on drugs.
Thank goodness there are 12 step programs where a person who is willing to live a different life can do so, and keep giving it back by helping others.
Enough said.
If execution of another human being is wrong, then what about training military personnel to intentionally kill those who, so far as they know have done nothing worthy of execution? I write, of course, about those who are trained to kill by dropping bombs from great altitude, or lobbing shells into villages where some bad guys are purported to be taking shelter. If the death penalty is patently wrong- headed, then what about war-making?
I'm against the death penalty, but why can't they just give 'em a massive dose of heroin?
I thought the topic of the thread was whether or not execution can be considered humane per se..
I did not think it was a forum for KEM_PATRICK to bludgeon us all with a demonstration of his/her cruel hypocrisy.
You don't know how to think straight jerk. (per se) You favor the death penalty Therzal.
Tut tut...KEM_P
Whatever happened to your clear and logical thought processes??
You appear to be losing your grip and manners...
My manners THERZAL? You wrote that I bludgeon us with cruel hypocracy, and then you question my manners. Tut-Tut my ass, you soplistic, self centered fool.
You aren't just insulting me you konw, you're insulting all of those here whom I agree with. Almost everyone here disagrees with you and your favoring the death penalty. Do you think I care about you, or your snotty comments. Only that some may not realize what you have posted on this issue previously, that article now in the January archives. And perhaps form an opinon that I'm a bit harsh with any response I make to your unnecessay attacks. We disagree on the issue. Just leave it at that and stop wasting time starting a row. No one here wants to see it, and that you think I'm a barbarian, as you have previously stated more than once.