kinda-sorta lethal injection
ok, so it was indeed a lethal injection, and stanley williams, the co-founder of the crips, did indeed die. but this article indicates that he wasn't pronounced dead until 34 minutes after the injection and that there were complications in getting the injection into williams. most people probably think nothing of this, but it really bothers me because i thought lethal injection was the "humane" way for the government to kill its prisoners. didn't we eliminate other form of capital punishment because they could be considered cruel and unusual punishment? and if lethal injection is the best way to put someone to death, why does it take over a half an hour. my guess is that it may appear more humane to the on-looker, but it certainly doesn't feel quick and painless.
every time i read about someone being put to death (albeit not very often, because many states have stopped using the death penalty altogether) it brings the whole capital punishment debate to the forefront of my mind. since the sixth grade, i have been against the death penalty. i was in an academically-gifted program called ACE (academic curriculum enrichment) where we has to choose a side on a specific topic and have a mock debate. i researched the topic in our library and on the computer (at school, because we had no internet at home yet). at that point, i decided i was against the death penalty. though, i already knew i didn't like the idea of killing people, it was a decision i made because of the numbers and facts surrounding the death penalty. it statistically has never been a deterrent to murder, it is not cost effective, and at the time, in nj alone, approximately 25 cases (23 exactly, i think), had evidence appear that may have proven people innocent after their execution. that being said, i still feel this way and think that every time i read more info and articles regarding the topic, my position is solidified.
tell me how it can be right for a government to kill someone. from a functional point of view (i personally am somewhat of a functionalist when it comes to law), it doesn't matter what it right and wrong, but rather it matters what works and is good for society. i am not sure at all that capital punishment has ever adequately served its purpose in history. i have never seen one example that it can deter crime, more specifically murder. serial killers make a point to get caught in states where they will be put to death quickly and efficiently. ted bundy got caught on purpose in florida, so that he would be put to death for his crimes. true, the man would never be able to kill again, but killing him didn't accomplish anything other than taking his life. did murder rates go down? did people think twice about murdering someone because of the imminence of the death penalty?
then, you look at someone like williams. he was convicted of 3 or 4 murders, which he claims to be innocent on. but that isn't to say that he states he never killed anyone. he was a violent criminal who started one of the most infamous and dangerous gangs in american (perhaps, world) history. but in prison he became an anti-gang activist and made a difference in how people view and work with gangs. he shed light on gang mentality and discouraged youth from joining. this is quite an accomplishment. then, we put him to death, silencing a now-positive voice, that could have made much more difference than another body in the morgue.
what do you think? is the death penalty administered fairly? if reformed, could it be more effective? is it simply outdated and useless? what would better penalties be? am i way off base in saying that the death penalty is immoral and ineffective? tell me what you think.
every time i read about someone being put to death (albeit not very often, because many states have stopped using the death penalty altogether) it brings the whole capital punishment debate to the forefront of my mind. since the sixth grade, i have been against the death penalty. i was in an academically-gifted program called ACE (academic curriculum enrichment) where we has to choose a side on a specific topic and have a mock debate. i researched the topic in our library and on the computer (at school, because we had no internet at home yet). at that point, i decided i was against the death penalty. though, i already knew i didn't like the idea of killing people, it was a decision i made because of the numbers and facts surrounding the death penalty. it statistically has never been a deterrent to murder, it is not cost effective, and at the time, in nj alone, approximately 25 cases (23 exactly, i think), had evidence appear that may have proven people innocent after their execution. that being said, i still feel this way and think that every time i read more info and articles regarding the topic, my position is solidified.
tell me how it can be right for a government to kill someone. from a functional point of view (i personally am somewhat of a functionalist when it comes to law), it doesn't matter what it right and wrong, but rather it matters what works and is good for society. i am not sure at all that capital punishment has ever adequately served its purpose in history. i have never seen one example that it can deter crime, more specifically murder. serial killers make a point to get caught in states where they will be put to death quickly and efficiently. ted bundy got caught on purpose in florida, so that he would be put to death for his crimes. true, the man would never be able to kill again, but killing him didn't accomplish anything other than taking his life. did murder rates go down? did people think twice about murdering someone because of the imminence of the death penalty?
then, you look at someone like williams. he was convicted of 3 or 4 murders, which he claims to be innocent on. but that isn't to say that he states he never killed anyone. he was a violent criminal who started one of the most infamous and dangerous gangs in american (perhaps, world) history. but in prison he became an anti-gang activist and made a difference in how people view and work with gangs. he shed light on gang mentality and discouraged youth from joining. this is quite an accomplishment. then, we put him to death, silencing a now-positive voice, that could have made much more difference than another body in the morgue.
what do you think? is the death penalty administered fairly? if reformed, could it be more effective? is it simply outdated and useless? what would better penalties be? am i way off base in saying that the death penalty is immoral and ineffective? tell me what you think.
posted by justincharlesharlan at 8:56 AM
4 Comments:
I don't know if the death penalty is immoral in theory. "A life for a life" seems just to me. I take the view, though, that even if the death penalty is moral in theory, it is immoral in practice. The system which issues the death penalty is very fallible - a black man convicted of killing a white man is much more likely to receive the death penalty than a white man convicted of killing a black man; a poor defendant is much more likely to receive the death penalty than a rich defendant.
Prisoners have been released from death row in Illinois (around 13 if I'm remembering correctly) because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. When they were convicted the science wasn't good enough to evaluate the evidence, but years later it freed them. These were men, mind you, who had been judged guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. The system is horribly flawed. The governor of Illinois put a moratorium on executions after the exonerations. I am amazed that all governors haven't done the same.
I'm looking forward to seeing "After Innocence," a documentary about seven men who were wrongfully imprisoned for decades. It chronicles their lives after they got out of prison. http://www.afterinnocence.com
An interesting note about the method of execution...Utah still offers convicted murderers the option of dying by firing squad. This is because of a Mormon teaching that says criminals can only be redeemed by having their blood spilled (I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but that's the general idea). Electrocution, lethal injection, and hanging don't fit the bill.
thanks for the input phil. the system is the biggest issue, i concur. you'd probably be surprised at how expensive the death penalty is to tax payers too. death row prisons are uber expensive, much moreso than other prisons.
also, i guess a life for a life is just... but i have a really hard time putting the ability to murder legally in the hands of the government. maybe its more my issues with the system and government than it is a moral thing. i didn't really get in depth with how i feel because i could write a book on this if i started. it's not my greatest passion, so i doubt it would be the first book i'd write. but maybe i'll write a somewhat longer, more developed explanation of my thoughts on the death penalty for this here blog sometime.
thanks.
I would say that there were places in history where the death penalty was necessary.
Cultures and times where there was no adequate manner of detainment and/or rehabilitation. In these situations the safest thing to do for all parties was to kill them. Of course this left no room for innocence to be proven and I am sure thousands of innocent people died. But I believe a case can be made that early societies wouldn't have made it far without having dangerous members removed.
Our (I speak as an American, I have limited knowledge of world penal systems) methods of detainment and rehabilitation may be far from perfect, they are still functional enough to eliminate the need for a death penalty.
When a prisoner is found guilty, I believe there are a few calls that need to be taken into account. The need to protect society at large, to send the message that what was done is not acceptable, provide justice (not revenge) for the victims and to protect the fact that convicted may still prove innocent.
These can all be done in prison or life in prison. The is no additional call that a death penalty would serve outside of revenge and convenience (even that second one is debatable)
The one argument I've heard is that judges are too lax on criminals (I have yet to see evidence for that though) and too often those deserving life "only" serve a decade or so.
My response to this is not that we should continue with the death penalty but we should fix our standards on what "life in prison" means.
When you put someone to death you say that they are beyond forgiveness, beyond reconciliation, beyond rehabilitation. We are reducing them to less then human and disposing of them.
We are removing the growth and future these humans may have behind bars. They still have a lot they can do for society at large and in the prison itself.
the death penalty may have been necessary for social function at some point, so i don't disagree with you there kevin. but, now, just as you have said, there is really no need.
"When you put someone to death you say that they are beyond forgiveness, beyond reconciliation, beyond rehabilitation. We are reducing them to less then human and disposing of them."
your point here is basically why i would venture to the point that i think the death penaly is immoral (for lack of a better word).
i don't know how i'd feel if someone killed my wife and they faced the possibility of the cahir or the injection. i'd like to think i'd stand on the side i stand on now, but i can't imagien the pain and rage that would accompany such a situation.
i guess, i just continue to pray that our justice system can become more just day by day. but my faith certainly does not lie in our courts and our government, so...
thanks for the input.
Post a Comment
<< Home