The Penalty of Death
"Perhaps we just shouldn't be killing people". A guest on a news program said that. Are they right?
I think I was watching Fox News. In Oklahoma on Tuesday the 29th, close to 6:30 PM, the state went about trying to put a man to death for the murder of a 19 year old girl. It took 43 minutes for him to die - a process that is "supposed" to take 6-12 minutes - during which he vocally refuted the claim he was unconscious after the sedative was administered and he was declared so, and was still moving and convulsing after the paralyzing agent was administered. Saying it was botched is an understatement.
The history of executions is bloody and inconsistent. Before the current "preferred" method there have been (in no specific order) crucifixions, stoning, drowning, hanging, beheading, burning, boiling, blood-letting, starving/dehydrating, shootings, and electrocutions.
The current method is lethal injection; the administration of a trio of drugs meant to numb the victim's sense of pain, paralyze them so they cannot move, and finally to kill.
The transition from one means of execution to the next, at least for the larger part of the last couple centuries, has been driven, and justified, by a pursuit of a more "humane" way of killing people.
The question is, is there such a thing as a humane way for a government to kill its citizens. The current spate of problems for states seeking to kill convicts comes because one of the drugs that was used in their cocktails was only being made by an Italian pharmaceutical company that since said, essentially, our doctors work hard to make drugs to save lives, not end them. That is also the reason why no American pharmaceuticals have stepped in to produce the same or a similar drug.
The United States likes to pride itself on being a moral, upstanding, nation that represents the most civilized aspects of humanity. We pride ourselves on standing up for what is right and respectable. Perhaps it is time we change the question. Perhaps we should stop asking, "what is the best way for our government to kill people" and ask, "why do we allow our government to kill anyone in the first place?"
Think about this; just yesterday I talked about about how we don't like the government taxing us, and the fact that there are lots of people and organizations that vociferously argue against taxes and the government taking their money. The mere mention of a restriction on gun rights will immediately cause a loud roar of opposition with people citing the Second Amendment and not wanting government to take their guns. How often do we hear anyone speak out about the ability of the government to take people's lives? Last I check, life is the first right the founding fathers enshrined.
This is just one more issue which we as a nation have to take a better account of ourselves and ask the right questions. A civilized nation should not take up the mantle that it's okay to execute our criminals. As reprehensible as their acts may be, we do not prove ourselves more civilized, to be better people, by choosing to kill them. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking so.
I think I was watching Fox News. In Oklahoma on Tuesday the 29th, close to 6:30 PM, the state went about trying to put a man to death for the murder of a 19 year old girl. It took 43 minutes for him to die - a process that is "supposed" to take 6-12 minutes - during which he vocally refuted the claim he was unconscious after the sedative was administered and he was declared so, and was still moving and convulsing after the paralyzing agent was administered. Saying it was botched is an understatement.
The history of executions is bloody and inconsistent. Before the current "preferred" method there have been (in no specific order) crucifixions, stoning, drowning, hanging, beheading, burning, boiling, blood-letting, starving/dehydrating, shootings, and electrocutions.
The current method is lethal injection; the administration of a trio of drugs meant to numb the victim's sense of pain, paralyze them so they cannot move, and finally to kill.
The transition from one means of execution to the next, at least for the larger part of the last couple centuries, has been driven, and justified, by a pursuit of a more "humane" way of killing people.
The question is, is there such a thing as a humane way for a government to kill its citizens. The current spate of problems for states seeking to kill convicts comes because one of the drugs that was used in their cocktails was only being made by an Italian pharmaceutical company that since said, essentially, our doctors work hard to make drugs to save lives, not end them. That is also the reason why no American pharmaceuticals have stepped in to produce the same or a similar drug.
The United States likes to pride itself on being a moral, upstanding, nation that represents the most civilized aspects of humanity. We pride ourselves on standing up for what is right and respectable. Perhaps it is time we change the question. Perhaps we should stop asking, "what is the best way for our government to kill people" and ask, "why do we allow our government to kill anyone in the first place?"
Think about this; just yesterday I talked about about how we don't like the government taxing us, and the fact that there are lots of people and organizations that vociferously argue against taxes and the government taking their money. The mere mention of a restriction on gun rights will immediately cause a loud roar of opposition with people citing the Second Amendment and not wanting government to take their guns. How often do we hear anyone speak out about the ability of the government to take people's lives? Last I check, life is the first right the founding fathers enshrined.
This is just one more issue which we as a nation have to take a better account of ourselves and ask the right questions. A civilized nation should not take up the mantle that it's okay to execute our criminals. As reprehensible as their acts may be, we do not prove ourselves more civilized, to be better people, by choosing to kill them. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking so.
Comments
Post a Comment