unique perspectives from six people

Monday, September 14, 2009

Is The Death Penalty 'Cruel & Unusual'?

#1 Compare That With Lethal Injection

Is the death penalty cruel and unusual? In the past that case could certainly be argued. Whether it was death by firing squad, electrocution, hanging, the gas chamber, or beheading, execution was cruel, inhumane, and incredibly painful. Compare that with lethal injection. Being completely anesthetized and then paralyzed hardly seems cruel in comparison.

Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, the way it's typically administered in the US is hardly cruel and unusual.

Submitted by Neal Harkner. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#2 A Matter Of Perspective

Whether the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment is a matter of perspective. To the accused person's family, I will wager that it is. Try asking the victim's family. I'll bet it doesn't seem so cruel and unusual to them. What's my perspective on the matter? I've always been conflicted about this particular issue. It's not so much that I believe it's cruel and unusual, but it sets a bad example. It's hypocritical. It's like the parent who seeks to teach his child not to hit by spanking him. Really? Is that the lesson we want to teach here? It doesn't seem like we're sending the right message.

While I don't necessarily feel that the death penalty is the right choice, I do feel that there should be an ultimate form of punishment. A crime like murder should not go unpunished, and it should not be punished in the same way as theft. There must be an order to things. Furthermore, it has been shown that not all people who are executed are necessarily guilty. Something as severe as the death penalty should not be enforced unless there is absolutely no question of guilt. Until we have a foolproof system, there needs to a better way.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#3 We Are Capable Of Rehabilitation

I don't consider the death penalty as cruel and unusual, but I don't agree with it either. The death penalty is a form of punishment sentenced to those who exercise actions strongly against the social norm; most common is murder. And while it may seem fitting to end the life of one who insists on ending the life of another, I believe that the majority of abnormal behavior stems from an abnormal psyche. I know there are those who understand and have full control over what they do, even if it's wrong, but there are those who are strongly affected by their abnormalities, and can not help themselves. Various forms of death penalties have existed throughout history, though, I believe these days, we are capable of rehabilitation of the psyche and giving prisoners a second chance of life. I am not naive enough to know that rehabilitation will not work for everyone, but I have strong support for the effort.

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#4 Cruel And Unusual By Whose Definition?

The death penalty may seem cruel to some, but a life sentence without the chance of parole seems cruel to others. Who chooses? The death penalty is carried out by individuals every few minutes; it’s called murder. So, the death penalty is certainly not unusual. OK, so I don’t think the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, but I really don’t agree with its use. I’m not saying the death penalty is wrong. Throughout Biblical history, God gave death penalty orders many times. The biggest problem I have with the death penalty in our culture is human error. I am afraid there are too many innocent people on death row while others that are guilty get away with their crimes because of money and position.

Submitted by Donna Buchanan.

#5 The Question My Son Asked

I spank my kids. When they misbehave or disobey, they know that a spanking is a likely punishment. One day, my son asked me, "Why is it OK for you to hurt me, but it is not OK for me to hurt other people?" I answered him honestly with reference to reinforcement and the like. I still spank my kids.

Using the same logic, the death penalty would be the ultimate "reinforcement". They definitely won't commit that crime again...because they are dead. Such a penalty is overtly cruel and unusual because the person/criminal is only considered as a means to executing punishment...with no other purpose. If the punishment is to be understood and comprehended, the recipient must be alive to receive that punishment. Punishment ceases to serve a purpose when the recipient cannot understand it.

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#6 I Can't Wait For The Right Supreme Court Case To Come Along And Ban It

Since we're quoting the Eighth Amendment in discussing "cruel and unusual punishment," I'm taking this as distinct from whether I think the death penalty is "right" or "wrong." I recognize that there are other arguments for whether or not it's right or wrong, but "cruel and unusual" is a legal term, so that's what we're going with.

The Eighth Amendment bans, among other things, "cruel and unusual punishments." Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan wrote in the seminal death penalty case, Furman v. Georgia, that a punishment is cruel and unusual is it falls into one of the following criteria: 1) it is carried out in a wholly arbitrary fashion, 2) its severity is degrading to human dignity, 3) it is clearly and totally rejected throughout society, or 4) it is patently unnecessary.

On the first criteria of "arbitrariness," I suggest one read up on the cases of Cameron Todd Willingham (who was factually and legally innocent yet murdered anyway by the state of Texas) or John Thompson (who after spending 18 years on death row was released because of the death bed confession of an ADA who withheld exculpatory evidence) or Troy Davis (who has been trying to enter into evidence statements from witnesses who were bullied into identifying him as the killer by police for years and whose case was just granted certiorari). Too many of these individuals have been convicted of capital crimes due to notoriously unreliable jailhouse snitches or "eyewitnesses" for me to consider the death penalty as anything other than arbitrarily carried out (especially considering how black men are inexplicably and disproportionately represented on death row).

On the criteria of whether the death penalty has been rejected by society, I guess that depends on what you consider your "society." Do you consider your society your town? Your state? The United States? The World? In terms of similarity and feeling as one "community," I consider my "society" as the civilized nations of the world. And, guess what? The United States is one of the only countries in the civilized world to still have the death penalty. Yep, we're just as civilized as Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Botswana in this respect.

As to whether the death penalty is unnecessary, it is in all respects. It's not a deterrent, and it certainly isn't efficient. In a recent article in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, eighty-eight percent of criminologists did not believe the death penalty was a deterrent to murder. A recent nationwide survey of police chiefs ranked having the death penalty LAST among deterrents to violent crimes. The South, which executes 80% of all people executed in this country, has the highest murder rates of any region. And, honestly, think about it? If someone is so gone mentally as to think taking another human life is okay, do you really think they are thinking about the range of punishments they might receive for doing it? Thinking the death penalty is a deterrent is not only ridiculous, but has been disproven time and time again. Is it then necessary to keep dangerous individuals off the street? No, that's what life without parole is for. But, one might say, "What about prison overcrowding?" I'll tell you what, release the millions of people in prison for "victimless crimes" such as marijuana possession, and we wouldn't have a problem. Plus, life without parole is a hell of a lot less costly than to carry out the death penalty. For example, it costs the state of Texas $2.3 million to give someone the death penalty. By contrast, in Texas it costs less than $1 million to imprison someone in a maximum security prison for 40 years (about the average term of life without parole). Now, does it make sense to spend that extra $1.3+ million on securing the death of a person that, for the most part, I could give two shits about, or does it make more sense to spend that money on improving our public schools or figuring out other ways to prevent violent crime?

As to whether the death penalty "offends human dignity," since the death penalty is arbitrarily carried out, rejected by the civilized world, and is completely unnecessary, what reason is left for its application? The mob calling for vengeance? I consider vengeance anathema to human dignity. Maybe that's just a personal opinion, but to me "an eye for an eye" just seems childish and petty. The cultivation of vengeance as a social value or "justice" pretty much makes me sick and exists nowhere in my definition of dignity of a society or the individuals in that society. No matter how heinouse a crime, no one on this earth is capable of deciding who lives and who dies on the basis of whether "they deserved it." And in the case of the death penalty, if a society is wrong just once, there's no way to fix it. There's no justice in that.

In sum, as society changes, our values change and whether a punishment fits into one or more of the Furman criteria changes. This is why in 1977, the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for rape of an adult woman. This is also why just last year the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for rape of a child when the child was not also killed. In all, the death penalty is not so entrenched in the American legal system as one might think, and its "acceptability" is constantly being called into question. I, for one, believe that it is not only wrong in every respect of what is moral and civilized, but it fits into the Eighth Amendments definition of "cruel and unusual punishment." As such, I can't wait for the right Supreme Court case to come along and ban it again.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.