When American colonists fought for and won independence, they accepted England’s laws, including capital punishment. Since then, England and our other close allies have abandoned the process of putting criminals to death. We are, however, allied with Russia, China, Libya, Iran, Cuba, Chile and Saudi Arabia in the use of capital punishment.
The way in which we legally put criminals to death has changed frequently since colonial times in the interest of executing human beings in a more, “civilized manner.” Hanging and firing squads were most widely used until the electric chair was invented in 1890. Electrocution stayed with us until relatively recent times, being replaced mostly by the gas chamber, then finally lethal injection, which is now the more widely accepted method of execution.
Hanging, electrocution, and the gas chamber were all criticized as legal forms of torturing the condemned, and they all offended the sensitivities of witnesses. Shooting by firing squad didn’t get as much criticism, but was too bloody and therefor offended witnesses’ sensitivities. Injecting lethal dozes of chemicals into the condemned, however, doesn’t make witnesses ill, and it satisfies their macabre desire to watch the condemned die. Now that method has also come under criticism.
Capital punishment stopped for a time, and it was assumed that it was solely because of a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, it ceased because of public disapproval and a reluctance of juries to convict the accused in cases requiring mandatory death penalties. In 1967, public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to capital punishment, and the Supreme Court abolished it. In 1976, public opinion shifted and the Supreme Court re-instated it.
The principal argument by advocates for capital punishment is that it meets society’s need for retribution and justice, and it is a deterrent to capital crimes. Abolitionists disagree, stating the punishment is too harsh to serve justice, and it will not deter the committing of heinous crimes. The scriptures of the world’s major religions seem to agree with, “an eye for an eye,” advocates while at the same time concurring with abolitionists that, the death penalty–no matter the circumstances–is an immoral punishment. From these opposing views, we must conclude that scriptures were written by human beings, some accepting, others rejecting capital punishment. Therefore, it isn’t possible to go to religious writings to find an answer acceptable to everyone. In searching for solutions, however, we should look at the Oklahoma City bomber’s (Timothy McVeigh) execution.
First, overwhelming publicity made McVeigh’s execution look like a P.T. Barnum three-ring circus. Television newscasters interviewed survivors, relatives of the dead victims, and McVeigh himself. Our government provided 230 reserved seats for survivors and relatives of murdered victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, the news media, friends of McVeigh, and officials to watch this main event. Closed circuit television brought the sight of the, “humane,” 21st century legal killing method to another 231 witnesses. Television news reporters even interviewed their own people who spoke of, “the arrogance that McVeigh showed in the courtroom was gone when he went into the death chamber.” If arrogance was a crime, politicians would form a line from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast.
Those who witnessed Mcveigh’s execution universally stated that justice had finally been served. Most of them believed it was right to execute McVeigh because he had killed their loved ones, and justice would not otherwise have been served. This argument is similar to the one McVeigh used in that he was only retaliating against a government that had set fire to think-alike Davidians in their Waco, Texas fortress compound. And it is not any different than the one that has kept Palestinians and Israelis at each others’ throats for an eternity.
Little thought has been given to the effects of witnessing an execution. Will the image of a human being methodically and deliberately being put to death with chemicals, one step at a time, gradually fade, then lay dormant in the viewers’ minds, only to surface later as symptoms of delayed reaction syndrome? These witnesses will most assuredly blame their emotional suffering on losing loved ones. They must consider, however, the emotional distress that has plagued military men throughout history may have taken hold of them in a similar manner. Killing a human being, or just seeing a human die, whether in war or watching someone being deliberately put to death can be a distressing emotional shock. And it can result in incapacitating mental disorders. No matter how often witnesses say to themselves, “Our government finally gave us justice by taking the life of that mass murderer,” another thought will gnaw at their subconscious. “I gave them permission to kill that man and I am, therefore, an accessory to the execution.”
Does a cold-blooded killer deserve the same fate as his victim? Of course he does! No one questions it is wrong for one human to kill another. Then isn’t it wrong for governments to put humans to death? The condemned are restrained by our agents who deliberately and methodically kill them. And we watch this barbaric procedure. Or we can’t bring ourselves to watch it, but do nothing or say nothing to criticize it. Nor do we vow not to let it continue because the condemned deserved to die. Isn’t this a throwback to a time long ago when getting even was accepted as the only way to right the wrong of killing another human? It’s the same action rival gangs do in cities to get even time and again. We invariably think of it as inhumane and uncivilized. Can we as a nation–or as citizens–consider ourselves more humane and civilized than people who believed–and still believe–in getting even?
Do we have capital punishment because we can’t come up with a better solution to carry out justice? Life in prison without parole is accepted by abolitionists, but not by advocates of capital punishment. There are, however, two alternatives that might satisfy everyone accept those with minds closed so tightly new ideas can’t seep in. These methods of serving justice could be used for the most heinous offenses while keeping life without parole for ruthless but lesser crimes.
One alternative would be to modify life in prison without parole to confinement at hard labor for life without parole. This alternative would include the absence of communications with the outside world such as letters, radio, television, computer, telephone and visitation, except when earned by the prisoner after lengthy confinement.
The second alternative would be to banish the condemned from civilization–all civilization, no matter how primitive. To banish them to a place so isolated that those sentenced would be required to struggle every waking moment to survive. Most would likely hold out for only a few weeks. Some might hang on for years, if it is the will of God. It must be a place from which no one can escape and so isolated that contact with the outside world is impossible.
Where can we find such a place? Outer space is a likely choice, but the cost would be prohibitive. Antarctica comes to mind next. The Supreme Court would likely consider it as cruel and unusual punishment, the same tribunal which ruled that legal killing of a human being is not cruel and unusual. The tropics should be ruled out because the climate is too pleasant.
There are, however, isolated uninhabited islands near the Arctic and Antarctic Circles (those imaginary line around the globe at 66 degrees 30 minutes north and south of the equator) that would fit the criteria of total isolation. And these would require prisoners’ every waking moment be devoted to survival. If accepted, two unwavering restrictions must be established and followed religiously. First, prisoners sentenced to banishment should be the only humans on these islands. Secondly, no one from the outside world should be able to get to them.
It is long past time when our degree of civilization should catch up with our advanced technology.
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
I love to smoke the herb, but I have to say I love the alternatives, these are just a few of what is out there, from just 2 or 3 people.
Send me video of your cannabis goodies for a compilation
http://ift.tt/1DRW2M1
via Web Design by Creatives Inside
No comments:
Post a Comment