An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The Executioner’s Tale
On Tuesday evening this week, in Ohio, Rommel Broom was led to the lethal injection chamber for the 1984 abduction, rape, torture and murder of a 14 year old girl. Two hours later, Broom walked out under his own power after technicians were unable to insert an I.V. properly into a vein. This is stirring up another controversy over whether or not the state can attempt to put Broom down twice. I take a look at this case, along with some other famous botched executions over the ages, in my column this weekend at Pajamas Media, “The Executioner’s Tale: Rommel Broom’s Botched Lethal Injection.”
The death penalty is a perennially controversial subject, so you are invited to read it in full and share your comments.
36 Responses to “The Executioner’s Tale”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV. TMV said: The Executioner’s Tale: On Tuesday evening this week, in Ohio, Rommel Broom was led to the lethal injection cham.. http://bit.ly/JuS6z [...]
The death penalty is not controversial. It is barbaric. The only controversy is whether we should continue a barbaric practice or enter the second half of the 20th century like the rest of the civilized world.
Trial by Fire
Did Texas execute an innocent man?
What I want to know, is once you have determined that the wrong person was executed, how do you bring them back to life?
“What I want to know, is once you have determined that the wrong person was executed, how do you bring them back to life?“
Obviously you don't. You do a better job in capital cases making sure things like that don't happen. The bar has to be set extremely high for such cases, but the bar still needs to be there.
Jazz -
I suggest you tell that to the US Supreme Court and the various State Supreme Courts. Using current standards, the US Supreme Court will not consider guilt or innocence, but only whether the convicted individual received a “fair trial,” and it's a pretty low bar. Many states continue to pay very low fees to attorneys who do indigent capital defense work, resulting in barely adequate representation and certainly nothing approaching good or excellent representation. Those attorneys are also squeezed on how much they can spend on investigation and expert testing, resulting in further inability to represent such clients at anything other than bare minimal standards.
The death penalty falls disporportionately on the poor and minorities. This represents, to some extent, societal biases, but also represents the lack of resources for vigorous representation. So long as the Supreme Court uses the minimal standards test it currently uses as its “fair trial” and “adequate representation” standards, capital punishment cannot and will not be adminstered fairly.
Capital punishment is to justice what bleeding with leeches is to medicine. Medieval, ineffective and inexcusable in the 21st century.
Richard Meehan: Lawyers take oath to defend all, even the guilty
http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/StateView.php
So what is the penalty for putting an innocent man to death?
For some serious education on the death penalty, may I suggest surfing through the website of the Equal Justice Institute. http://eji.org/eji/ . Topics include: wrongful convictions, inadequate counsel, racial bias, convictions of those under 18, race and poverty.
You will learn, for example, that Alabama refuses to provide counsel for death penalty cases on direct appeal.
Go to the site and learn more about those “high bars” required to execute the poor and minorities. This is an issue worth becoming educated about.
You can also get statistics and history from the Southern Poverty Law Center site http://www.spicenter.org . They no longer do much direct death penalty work because of the emergence of the Equal Justice Institute, but have have some good background material on the subject.
For now, I'm ging back to the EJI site, & will come back with more specifics & prbably some horror stories.
Jazz that sounds really good but it's not going to happen. They make an attempt at it here in Oregon but the result has been prosecutors don't ask for the death penalty because it simply costs too much money for trials and appeals.
Some pearls from the Equal Justice Institute.
Since 1973, 130 people on death row have been released after evidence of their inoocence was uncovered. That number does not include those found to be innocent after execution or those who did not have the opportunity to prove innnocence before being put to death.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that death row prisoners have no right to test DNA evidence that might exonerate them EVEN IF THE PRISONER PAYS for the testing. District Attorney's Office For Third Judicial District v. Osborne (2009).
“Whether a defendant will be sentenced to death depends more on the quality of his legal team than any other factor.” Cases involving death sentences include attorneys who have slept through parts of trials, shown up intoxicated and who failed to do any preparation work at all for sentencing.
“More than half of the over 3300 people on death row are people of color; nearly 42% are African American.”
“As a result of inadequate representation, many people have been illegally convicted and sentenced. An alarming number of those men, women and children are innocent. Death row prisoners have been convicted even though their lawyers were cited as being drunk in court, subsequently disbarred or publicly supported a conviction and death sentence for their own client.”
All quotes and statistics from the Equal Justice Institute, http://eji.org .
More if I have time later in the day. BTW, Ron Beasley is correct. States that provide adequate defense have much, much lower death penalty rates compared to number of murders than states that do not require or provide adequate representation. I'll try to get some numbers on that this afternoon.
One more morsel for thought. Blacks who kill whites are six times more likely to get the death penalty than whites who kill whites, blacks who kill blacks or whites who kill blacks (the least likely to get the death penalty).
This number is from memory. I will check it out later to be sure it is accurate and get back with a correction if it is not.
Maybe for death penalty cases they should be forced through not only the guilt/innocence trial but also a separate life in prison/death penalty trial for extra care, for instance maybe not allowing the jury to see the defendant to ensure no bias can be involved.
The way the death penalty is handled in this country is disgusting and criminal but I am not against the death penalty. In fact I think it should be used against serial and repeat rapists and child molesters as well since they cant be changed. Murderers on the other hand are often situational and often caused by a persons fear in the moment and reacting the exact wrong way. I would not complain though if we also began using it against white collar criminals whose damage to the economy/nation/investors exceeds a million or more dollars(that would at least take away the incentives). Thats where I am a tad extremist.
The death penalty is obviously constitutional (in fact, it is mentioned more than once in the Constitution) and cannot be claimed to be “cruel and unusual”; misuse of that phrase as applied to execution methods also fails. (Besides, the more humane the method is, the spookier it is, if you think about it at all.)
The real issues here are procedural and I'm honestly surprised that with a lib Dem like Obama in office now, and from a state where this was done throughout his state, we don't subject all federal capital cases currently to DNA review and other methods we didn't have available at earlier times when many of these cases were adjudicated. (It's overreach by the federal government to encroach into capital state cases using the “privileges and immunities” clause, for example.)
“The way the death penalty is handled in this country is disgusting and criminal but I am not against the death penalty.”
Actually, we have utilitarian and economic arguments we can make in favor of the death penalty that are stronger than those for, say, progressive taxation. In the case of “corrections,” we typically want people locked up who are violent, and wish not only to deter others but also reduce the chance of more violence by the offenders who are incarcerated. Hence we choose typically a sentence around 15-25 years (which incidentally is similar to the longest term for bonds or other economic arrangements, and ought to be for the longest terms of government office as well) so that the prisoners are older and less violence-prone when released. There's no reason we should tie up expensive space inside jails and prisons for much older people, nor provide them health care, and other special care, when they are much older, when the room is better utilitized confining younger, more dangerous people.
That's why I remember a part of the book “Papillon” by Henri Charriere, when he was on one of his escapes from the French penal colony in South America and had been held in a jail in Colombia, where he was told things were more civilized there (no life imprisonment) and smarter:
“In Colombia it's twenty years or death, nothing else.”
Our own penal system would be better if it changed to this, as well. Not that it will or it necessarily should, but some reforms are definitely in order, and especially in later decades as we face all kinds of fiscal problems, we are going to have to question more strongly why we'd keep people confined at greater and greater expense (as they age) when it would be cheaper to do something else, instead.
Food for thought.
“white collar criminals whose damage to the economy/nation/investors exceeds a million or more dollars”
I don't know about that, and there are alternatives, but consider such crimes that result in deaths (adulteration of products that are ingested; deliberately negligent or worse, deliberately defective designs of things that result in deaths as well as injuries, etc.; a “softer” example of people facing huge financial disasters who are led to suicide or to killing others, say).
I don't view everything in monetary or purely economic terms as Gary Becker does, but he is right that so much in our criminal system, including many drug crimes as well as other non-violent crimes, are better dealt with using a system of fines, including perhaps a reciprocal formula, where the cost of damages done is divided by the fraction of those who are caught. If 10% of offenders are caught doing a certain crime, than if caught, the costs of that crime would be multiplied by ten to yield the fine that would have to be paid.
“The US is often criticized for its refusal to abolish capital punishment. Many now claim that abolition of capital punishment is a precondition of a civilized criminal-law system. Nobel laureate Gary Becker disagrees.”
http://www.project-syndicate.org/print_commenta…
Economics of Crime and Punishment
http://www.ww.uni-magdeburg.de/bizecon/material…
(see Section 3, “Crime and Punishment”)
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/la…
(I'm aware that abolishing all drug crimes is nirvana-ish, that often drug crimes are simply the ones out of many others for which various career criminals happen to be caught and convicted, same as Al Capone finally got in trouble for tax evasion rather than for anything violent or destructive.)
“Capital punishment is to justice what bleeding with leeches is to medicine. Medieval, ineffective and inexcusable in the 21st century.”
Wasn't the same thing said about the nation-state and warfare (and the atomic bomb) after World Wars I and II, and naive faith not only in the modern welfare state but in world government, as well?
I'd address the imperfections and the impossibility of correcting an error in death penalty application.
Consider George Ryan in Illinois (what I was alluding to, earlier):
http://www.wissenschaftonline.de/heureka/politi…
http://www.stateline.org/live/printable/story?c…
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=28
http://i2.democracynow.org/2000/8/3/gov_george_…
See Feingold, too, for example:
http://feingold.senate.gov/speeches/senfloor/mo…
MSF –
Most states do have a separate trial to determine the sentence, life, life without parole or death. It doesn't help. The results are very arbitrary. It also requires more skill from the defense attorney, and more time…all of which the states won't pay.
Even if one believes in capital punishment as you do, I would hope you would agree that it needs to be administered fairly and with just and equal results. That does not happen. Perhaps if you cannot be enlightened to abolition of this atrocity, you could see your way clear to support a moratorium until a just, equal and fair way of administering it can be found.
Sorry Tidbits I think I did not state my position clearly enough. I do think there SHOULD be a moratorium exactly for the reasons you stated until we can find a fair and balanced way of handling it since in such a situation there is no way to “take it back” or make right what once went wrong(love me some Quantum Leap). Once that has been established THEN I fully support the death penalty. I do not in its current form and where as I know that many states do close to what I discussed like you note it still does not work and is unacceptable, possibly because of biases against the appearance of the defendant. Until the system is fixed I am against capital punishment though I have no issue with it morally nor legally but currently the system is broken and many that should be considered for the sentence are not yet pose a greater danger to society than those that do and many of them are disproportionally black which makes me incredibly uncomfortable. I do not believe in punishment nor the governments place to punish but I do believe in societies need to protect itself and to rehabilitate where able its citizens to steer them back to contributing to the society they have damaged. This is also why I think large frauds and the like along with rapists and molesters should make the list even before many that have murdered a single person, they are more dangerous to societal health and well being and they have harmed a greater amount of people generally than many people now sitting on death row. So to sum up, I do not believe our system has the moral high ground and therefore MUST place a moratorium on the death penalty but I would like to see the system reformed and new ideas to be put in place before it is if ever brought back at which point I would support it which makes my view a little complicated.
DLS – You have your facts wrong when you say “The death penalty is obviously constitutional (in fact it is mentioned more than once in the Constitution)”.
The words “death penalty do not appear in the constitution – at all, ever. Run a search of the document (I did). The word “death” appears four times, all in provisions having to do with the election and succession of the President or Vice President (Article II, and Amendments XII. XX and XXV. Run a search of the document (I did). The phrase “capital punishment” also does not appear in the Constitution. Run a search of the document (I did).
If you want to argue your opinion fine, but making up “facts” out of thin air doesn't give you much credibility.
MSF – Thank you for that clarification. I must be honest with you though. The moratorium is something of a ruse. Those of with experience on this issue, and I have much, understand that people have been trying to clean up the death penalty for 70-80 years & nothing works. As a starting point it can't work until we can devise a system that determines guilt to an absolute certainty, as opposed to a jury's opinnion. And that, you get to face all the rest of the issues. It is the most probable outcome that if a moratorium were imposed until a fair, just and equal means of administering the death penalty were found, it would never rear its ugly head again. Which would be fine with me.
“The words “death penalty do not appear in the constitution – at all, ever.”
???
Surely you jest.
What do you think “deprived of life” means?
“You have your facts wrong [...] making up 'facts' out of thin air doesn't give you much credibility.”
My credibility has never been an issue, inasmuch as I have posted the truth, not fiction, instead.
To save you the trouble of looking up things again:
“nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life [...] nor be deprived of life [...] without due process of law” (Amendment V)
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life [...] without due process of law” (Amendment XIV)
You're welcome.
Some additional information for those who are interested. This time from the Death Penalty Information Center, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org .
Relating back to a prior comment that blacks murdering whites are more likely to get the death penalty than whites murdering blacks. The current death row figures are: blacks who murdered whites – 243 currently on death row. White who murdered blacks? 15 currently on death row. I correct my earlier comment. The differential is not 6 to 1, it is 16.2 to 1.
Death penalty imposition based on race of the victim. White victim 79%. Black victim 14%. Other 7%Same source.
Personally, I support the death penalty. For select crimes, such as murder for hire, act of terrorism resulting in death, killing someone while in the act of committing another crime of violence – all see perfectly fair to me. The victim has had his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness removed by the killer; it is only just that the killer should, in turn, be deprived of his life.
As for this sickening farce in Ohio, this is the fault of the ghouls who argue for so called humane execution by lethal injection. My vote is that all states and the federal government have a protocol which allows for several methods of execution, all of which should be low tech, and not require the assistance of a 'medically trained professional technician but not a doctor.'
My vote is to make hanging Plan A. For obese killers, or those who have had neck injuries such as previous attempts to slash their throat, then Plan B is a firing squad. Both should result in death of the condemned in much less than two hours, and both can be administered by any member of the law enforcement community.
As for the complaint that it may be unpleasant, please, spare me. Most murder victims do not get a nice pain free death. Many die agonizingly slowly.
Why do I support the death penalty? Because kindly feeling people refuse to be adult about punishment and public safety. Most European countries have so called life sentences that are not anything like life – the guy is paroled after 15 or 20 years. Or because they feel sorry for him dying in prison, like the Lockerbie bomber. Or, in the case of Washington State, the soft-hearted jurors demonstrated their soft-headed tenderness by allowing a man who murdered an elderly woman, and carefully attempted to hide her corpse to avoid detection to be decreed criminally insane. So what was the state Department of Social & Health Services thinking when they gave this guy and several other criminally insane folks a minimally supervised trip to the Spokane Interstate Fair? The man escaped and is still at large. He should have been kept inside an institution for the criminally insane for the rest of his life.
The state stopped performing lobotomies years ago, but I doubt if the procedure would make the personnel running DSHS any more incompetent and mindless than they already are.
“In 82% of studies, race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receivng the death penalty.” Source: United States General Accounting Office.
I have no issue with protecting society and its citizens but why is it the governments or any persons job or right to “punish” anyone? What gives them the moral authority to do so? How does “punishing” help society at large? Sorry I may back the death penalty in certain cases but our societies hunger for “punishment” I find repugnant and a flawed moral view that involves us judging people by our own biases and calling it liberty when in reality we are just being patriarchal which I think is a lot of why our prison systems have become so barbaric. If you let one guy get raped because he did something bad(yes it is prisons responsibility what happens in that prison by guards AND inmates) then the next guy who did something worse will need a worse “punishment.” These are not handed down in sentencing but the sickness of “punishment” has infected our society to the point that it effects the humanity of those that are intended to protect us from and rehabilitate said criminals so they cause no further harm if released. In a “punishment” based system you get what we have which is violent criminals becoming more and more violent in reaction to “crimes” committed against them in the name of “punishment.” This is why they have turned into gladiator schools in the first place and if you think thats fine wait until a few of these sweet guys are walking down your street with a very bitter world view and a body stacked with nothing but muscle and the knowledge of how to turn almost anything into a weapon they can kill you or your loved ones with.
MSF – Great comment. Thanks.
But it raises a question. If not as a “punishment”, “retribution” or “revenge” (all ugly parts of human nature), what is the basis for your support of the death penalty? It has been proven repeatedly not to be a deterrent, and death is certainly not rehabilitative. Wherefore your philosophical support of it?
Do you have a view on life without parole? Do you consider that a reasonable alternative to the State killing someone who has committed a heinous crime?
I actually do think it is a reasonable alternative. I also understand the inherent danger some individuals pose to society at large and also accept the views of those that have difficulty supporting such people financially. Another approach may be what I call the monastery approach which would involve all lifers being sent to educational “monasteries” where they could be educated and do research/testing/or experimentation for society at large to further pay their “debt.” That debt I truly believe is there I just see no reason to punish a tiger for eating meat if you will. You are punishing something for its nature or its knee jerk response which is a waste of time and effort for everyone involved. If we chose instead to try and find a way to “use” them or their skills in a humane manner that is the best result possible. Rapists and molesters and other such societal monsters if separated from the situation or people they would wish to harm CAN contribute to society but they have a sickness that is yet uncureable. Where as I think it is important to push society in this direction I do not think it is realistic to expect society to mature to the point that it would understand that in a quick manner since it is almost the opposite of how we think now and it would involve a good deal of people with financial interests involved to admit they were wrong.
We could send them to Mars, the geek in me wants to vote for this idea right now!
We don't need a rescheduled execution, we just needed Eric Idle and his club….problem solved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs
MSF – Turns out we are closer on these issues than I initially thought. Hello to Portland. May the rains be brief, Mt. Hood rise in the east with the sunset, the Willamette continue to flow north, and Powell's Bookstore continue to be an untidy reminder that some people still buy books and read and talk to each other.
DLS – Sorry for being so long in responding to you. Didn't want to violate one of my self imposed commenting rules.
In your original comment, you said the death penalty was “mentioned” in the Constitution. I admit I took that perhaps too literally and checked to see if that phrase or the phrase “capital punishment” appeared in the document. They do not. Certainly there is allusion to capital punishment as in deprivation of life references in the Constitution.
Also true is that in early America, the death penalty was meted out for such heinous crimes as slapping an elder of the church, trading with “Indians” and denying the existence of God. Massachusetts was particularly infamous for it litany of offenses carrying the death penalty. Pennsylvania was the first state to do away with the death penalty except for murder, and Wisconsin was the first to outlaw it entirely.
What is more important is your misinterpretation of constitutional construction in the courts. There are actually two ways that a law can be found unconstitutional. 1. It can be unconstitutional on its face. You are correct that the death penalty has been determined by the Supreme Court not to be “facially” unconstitutional. 2. The other way a law can be found to be unconstitutional is “as applied”. That is the argument that continues to swirl around the death penalty. In other words, even though not facially unconstitutional, it may be unconstitutional as applied because of its unequal application particularly to minorities and the poor, but in other repsects as well. Over time, the SC has narrowed the death penalty without going all the way to full unconstitutionality…yet. Those narrowings, things found to be unconstitutional “as applied”, include, most recently, imposing a death sentence on the mentally ill, the mentally retarded and children under the age of 16.
Btw, you missed the most obvious allusion to capital punishment in the Constitution. You'll find it the Fifth Amendment reference to “capital or other infamous crime”. You're welcome.
Here's an ugly thought. Those of you who support the death penalty: Upon your death, you awaken as an infant who ultimately will be wrongly put to death. You live your life up to that point, every second in real time, every dream of a better life, every love or fear or hatred, all of it. Then the disbelief of the arrest, the outrage, the pleading, the praying, the desperation. But to no avail. You are convicted. You are on death row, innocent, crying out to anyone who will listen. But no one will. You are marched to the chamber and watch in horror as your life is ended, innocent but unable to prevail against your accusers, whether the are mistaken or lying intentionally.
Welcome to you next life, Jazz, DLS and orsonbuggeigh. Disbelieve me if you want. Who knows what hell is or karma?
Thanks to MagicalSkyFather and GreenDreams for responding to my comment.
MSF: I appreciate your concern that governing not be punitive, and your concern that punishment simply creates more punishment. I can respect that, and yet, my observation, FWIW, is that rules are an essential component in any functioning society. Rules generally require some kind of sanctions be taken against those who fail to follow the rules. Call that punishment, if you like, because it is. This is, of course imposing something unwanted on those who do not like to follow rules, but I don't know that it automatically makes for a more violent society. Our complex society has a lot of rules. If you want to drive, you have to pass an examination and obtain a driver's license, pay the license fee for your car, and follow the traffic laws. Failure to comply with any of these results in sanctions, aka punishment if you are caught. Thus with murder. You intentionally deprived someone of his life, and yours is forfeit. You also are no longer a threat to society, because you are removed from society.
Patriarchal rules? Sorry, but I'm not buying that. My general anthropology courses were years ago, but I seem to recall that matriarchies also had rules, some of which were quite severe. ALL societies have rules and sanctions, i.e. laws and punishments to make them work. Failure to enforce them leads to problems. A few years back, anti World Trade Organization protests became a riot in Seattle. The city leaders, priding themselves on their progressive politics, collectively dithered, and worried about hurting people who were demolishing property in downtown Seattle, rather than enforcing the laws against riot and trespass, not to mention vandalism. Shortly afterward, similar protests were held in equally progressive Portland, Oregon and there was no property damage and no riot. Why? Because the city government and the police quietly met with a select few leaders of some of the groups supporting the protest and explained that Portland would recognize the protester's rights to peaceful assembly and protest, but would enforce the laws – all of the laws – and would prosecute rioters. Punishment, or the willingness to apply it, worked for Portland. Too bad Seattle didn't try it.
GD: I can respect your viewpoint. Theology isn't my suit either, but let me ask a return question: Let's take your scenario and change it to the unborn and unwanted fetus, seeing its development up to abortion. Any problems, or do you find that equally compelling? I ask, because I sincerely believe that abortion, like capital punishment is one of the sadly necessary acts that occurs in our imperfect world, because both sometimes really are the least bad choice. I have a number of Catholic friends, who adamantly oppose both abortion and capital punishment on religious grounds. I respect their beliefs and understand their theological reasoning. I cannot make the same theological claim, and I find that intellectually, I cannot view one form of taking a human life as socially acceptable, but the other repugnant. I think the self-professed conservative folks who argue strongly for capital punishment, but oppose abortion and their liberal counterparts who demand abortion for those who want it, but categorically oppose the death penalty are equally intellectually and morally mistaken. Both involve taking life, and are ugly. I can live with it, but prefer that both be kept to a minimum.
orsonbuggeigh – May I reply to your most recent comment?
Your laying out the moral, intellectual and logical consistency of the Catholic position on life/death issues is something I have long respected about the Catholic Church, though I am not Catholic myself. To complete your thought, one can add euthanasia and physician assisted suicide to the list of Catholic consistency.
Here is where I see the difference. Abortion is decided on an individual basis. As such it is an individual moral choice. Capital punishment is not an individual moral decision; it is imposed by the state. My personal moral position is that I oppose capital punishment as well as euthanasia, abortion and physician assisted suicide. Where I differ is that I would not impose my personal views on others by outlawing, say, abortion. It should be presented as a moral argument on an individual basis not imposed as legislated morality by the government. In the case of the death penalty, that essentially moral decision is being imposed by the government and it is being imposed even on those of us who find it immoral and reprehensible (our tax dollars are being used to put people to death notwithstanding our moral revulsion at the practice). And, yes I do oppose public funding of abortion for the same reason, that those who find it reprehensible should not have to fund it.
Back to your earlier comment. That someone escapes from a mental institution is justification for tightening security measures to prevent escape. It is not justification for capital punishment. My view.
Btw, what do you have to say about life without parole as a rational alternative to the death penalty? And, would you comment on MSF's idea of a monastic service model of imprisonment without parole? I thought that was a very creative idea.
I think I did not state my issue clearly enough, it was purely with the word punishment. A choice can be made when rules are broken as to whether you are trying to have the person repay their debt(which they do owe) to society and rehabilitate OR we can punish the person for their misdeed. The punishment model is the one used in our current system(I dont want to pay for them to lay around<hello they have already lost their liberty and how horrible is that!>, I dont want them to get X or Y, who cares what happens to them in there, I hope bubba is waiting on them) this is punishment and it will not allow rehabilitation. Rules exist for a reason generally attached to something that causes societal problems if not addressed, therefore by all means make them find a way or create a way to repay their debt to society(even in prison) but then rehabilitate them even if they never leave. The patriarchal part is the “I must punish them and make them crawl” mentality not protecting society and trying to deal with social ills. That is why I have an issue with the term because sometimes it comes with a mindset attached to it that is violence upon those in the care of the state which I also think is a danger to society in possibly a larger way than in already is the case. I do agree its a bit of a “Chomsky” word parsing debate but I think it is key to how we look at crime and the solutions for it. If we are using the death penalty to “punish” we are acting like parents, I leave the judgements and punishments to god but I and my society have every right to protect ourselves from those that would bring us harm. I refuse to join in on punishing and judgement but I will happily help or help come up with ideas of how to better protect ourselves and help right what has been wronged. But making things right has nothing to do with punishment, making something right involves repaying a debt by somehow fixing the problem or if impossible to somehow repay society at large possibly for the rest of your life in severe crimes. Punishment is a second wrong but it is practiced to deter as well, rehabilitation can look almost exactly the same as our current system but the mind set change would slowly lower the violence on the streets as well since it is actually an arms race in violence. The harder we stomp down the harder they fight back but If we changed the language of the debate I also think we could change a lot of the issues people have with it and our own societal effects from our desire to act like other peoples fathers. Jail is not bad, other countries and certain states in the US handle the prisoners very well but the prevailing attitude in this country is a very dark one on this subject.
Also on the abortion thing I have an odd view. I think we should heavily invest in research into how and when we could extract children from women and either move them to another mother or a “test tube” type facility. Then both sides win and everyone is if not happy everyone would shut up. It sounds far off but if you realize how close we are to the technology and began investing in research it would probably be a reality in the next ten years. No dead babies, no unwanted pregnancies and it could also probably be used for women that have trouble carrying to term which means even more babies, why has no one in the right to life movement commonly been banging the drum over this? To me it just makes sense. Until then I would back a health exception only situation that would eventually bump it down to preferably only in the first term until the science was ready to ensure an end to the debate. That will leave a small minority that are concerned with the “unnaturalness” of it all but I think the benefits outweigh the price.
Thanks for your reply orson. As tidbits said, there is a fundamental difference between society taking lives in my name as a social consequence for heinous crimes, and a woman and her doctor making a medical decision that is their choice, not society's.
The latter is a matter of constitutional rights. Like it or not, a fetus does not have any. A person becomes a citizen by virtue of being born or naturalized. There are over 100 things that can prevent a fetus (let alone a blastocyst or morula) from becoming a living human being and a citizen. The woman whose body carries it is already a citizen with rights. There is no other situation in which one citizen's rights are subordinated to another's. For example, you cannot be compelled to give a kidney to someone, even your own child. Biologically, a fetus is a mass of cells that becomes increasingly human-like over the course of its development. If laws existed (they don't) that defined a fertilized egg as a citizen, all sorts of complications ensue. The fact is that abortion is safer than bearing a child to term, and a woman who fears death or injury from pregnancy currently has the right to terminate the pregnancy. If we decide that the mass of cells has greater rights than the woman, she can be compelled to cease any medication that could harm the fetus, even if it risks her life (cancer drugs, heart medications, hormone therapies, even blood pressure drugs, antidepressants or insulin could threaten the fetus). There are more drugs contraindicated during pregnancy than there drugs that are not. Further, her dietary choices could be restricted. I do not believe these choices are my right, or society's, to make. But to take the moral point to that extreme, if medical choice is denied a pregnant woman and the fetus fails to thrive anyway, and the woman dies or suffers irreparable harm, how is HER suffering or death not then the fault of those who elevated the rights of a *potential* citizen above those of an *actual* one?
As for the purely speculative scenario I suggested, I'm not sure what the experience of a fetus is, but it is brief and apparently without memory or what we would consider conscious thought. It has no human experience, no sensory experience beyond the “whoosh whoosh” sound in utero, and as far as we know, no self-awareness. I don't believe a decision about abortion should be made lightly certainly, but in the case of wrongful execution, we are talking about a fully functioning citizen with rights, self awareness, fears and dreams and loved ones, snuffed out based on our belief that this citizen “deserves” to die. We better be damn sure of our evidence at the very least.