Condemned killer Kenneth Biros could become the first person in the country put to death with a single dose of an intravenous anesthetic instead of the usual - and faster-acting - three-drug process if his execution proceeds Tuesday.
Why don't they just do the job quicker and easier with a single injection of lead to the back of the head?
I wanted to say something, but I already said it before, so I'll just re-post from a previous incarnation. It's only slightly dated, but since we seem to be on a hamster wheel within the courts in regards to this issue, it's almost timeless, and will likely still be relevant when my great-grandson posts on his own blog someday.
(with a few grammatical alterations)
------------------------------------------------------
It keeps happening:
Gov. Jeb Bush suspended all executions in Florida after a medical examiner said Friday that prison officials botched the insertion of the needles when a convicted killer was put to death earlier this week.
Good for Jeb. I'm glad he did it. But I would hardly use the word "botched" while describing a planned execution that resulted in death. But maybe that's just me.
And from the once Golden State:
Separately, a federal judge in California imposed a moratorium on executions in the nation's most populous state, declaring that the state's method of lethal injection runs the risk of violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.Honest people can disagree over the method of putting somebody peacefully to sleep through lethal injection as being 'cruel' or not, but in California,with well over 600 prisoners(i think its nearly 1000 now,but not sure, and I'm too lazy to look it up), about 2-3 executions in a productive year(usually, it's less than one), and the average length of time on Death Row something like 25+yrs and growing, it certainly is unusual.
It seems to me, the more we try to out think the collective wisdom of the ages through complication of the simple, something goes wrong. In an attempt to render death as nicely as possible, we end up rendering very little death through the most torturously complicated of procedures.
Tell me. What is so goddamned difficult about placing a single bullet through the back of somebody's head? That's the way it was done for hundreds of years, is still being done by other 'less wiser'(?) nations, and works effectively each and every time. It's quick. Relatively clean. Cost effective. And measurably painless.
Yeah, I know... the bleeding hearts and lefties will bemoan the brutality and bloodiness of it all, but if they can find it in themselves to defend the procedure of piercing a baby's skull and sucking out it's brains, given time, I'm sure they'll eventually come around to acceptance.
To be honest about the issue, I oppose capital punishment, but not for the reasons usually cited by others.
I do not think it is cruel.
I do not think it is unconstitutional.
And for some crimes, I can think of no other more fitting level of sanction.
But in a fallible system, operated by fallible humans, where the wealthy, the connected, the sympathetic, and the famous tend to receive a more favorable level of justice than the rest of us; where 'equal protection under the law' is a promise without a guarantee, some things are just too final to be policy.
42 comments:
I tend to sympathize with the sheer simplicity and honesty of putting a bullet in the head, but the problem with honesty is that some one person has to have the courage to take it in hand, to pull the trigger at the back of someone's head. Why do you think the shooting squad came about? 1) They needed distance from the one executed, 2) When you get further away, you need more bullets fired to make sure you don't miss, 3) People are more willing to shoot the person when there are others to share the responsibility.
All I'm really saying is, I could not be that guy, taking all that ugly responsibility in hand. Could you?
There really is no reasonable reason to oppose the death penalty.
Yes, it is fallible; it can't be perfect. It has greatly improved over the past few decades. We must strive to continually improve.
The chances of being put to death for a crime you didn't commit are about 1 in a billion.
(Long-term readers will know I am guardedly pro-death-penalty, more or less per official Church teaching as it turns out.)
Tully--
I'm pretty sure (with some gun training, which I lack) I could be that guy. Unless the condemned were gibbering, which might make them too wiggly. After many years in prison, I doubt there would be too many gibberers left, though ...
Might be a female thing. I have spoken elsewhere about this, but it's my general impression that cold blooded, pre-intended killing is more tasteful to females.
I've seen it suggested that the victim or their family should be offered the gun ... I don't think that's healthy, but it was interesting.
All of that said, I don't necessarily disagree with "more humane" methods. Not sure I think they are actually "more humane."
K-Rod--
Yeah, sure, but why should one person get off for the same kind of crime that another person (poorer or of a somehow 'lesser' class) gets shot for?
Gino--
So, you don't go for the "God will sort them out" argument, then ;)?
kr, I don't understand your question.
Who says justice shouldn't be blind? Not me.
tully: can i be that person? as part of our govt system, no. because i oppose the system for the stated reasons.
BUT...
as vendetta? on someone who harmed my family/child? oh, dude. i can SO be that person. and field dress and hang from a tree as a warning to others who might want to fuck with the wrong family.
vendetta has a legitimate place in any society where the govt can fail.
The chances of being put to death for a crime you didn't commit are about 1 in a billion. [citation needed]
The keyword is "about". Do your own math.
How many people have been put to death for a crime they did not commit?
How many people come and go across this country? Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions.
Alright then, accounting for past improvements and future continuous improvements; the chances of being put to death for a crime you didn't commit are about 1 in a billion. :^)
Do your own math
OK.
You're asking the wrong questions. It is virtually impossible to know how many people have been wrongly executed. Particularly because states are (understandably) reluctant revisit any cases where an execution has already occurred.
What you can know is how many convictions have been overturned based on DNA exonerations. Since 1989, there have been 245 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. 17 of them were on death row.
The population of the US in 1989 was about 250 million. In the last 20 years, about 150 million people have been born, died, or migrated into the US (take the population of the US in 1989, multiply it by the birth rate (13/1000) the death rate (8/1000) and the net migration rate (4/1000), add it all up and multiply it by 20, and that's what you get).
That means 17 out of 400 million (or 1 in 23.5 million) people have been wrongly sentenced to death that we know of.
Even if that represents all of the people wrongly convicted and sentenced to death (and what are the odds of that, really?), that is still the moral equivalent of plucking one person at random out of the Los Angeles metro area and killing them.
(Sources: The Census Bureau, The CIA Factbook on the US, and the Innocence Project.)
Do you actually think your odds are about 1 in 20 million that YOU will be put to death for a crime you did not commit? Seriously?
Do you ever play the lottery?
Do you believe in MMGW?
With those odds you should be able to show us at least 20 RECENT cases where a person was put to death for a crime they did not commit. BUT YOU CAN'T! Bwwwaaaahahahaha
Now please re-read what I said.
And I will buy you a clue: "accounting for past improvements and future continuous improvements"
And we are not talking about the odds of being arrested for a possibly punishable by death penalty crime. Sheeesh.
We are talking about the odds of being put to death for a crime you did NOT commit!!! Why is it so hard to get that through your head?
*... typing real slow for you ...*
How many people have been put to death for a crime they did not commit?
How many people come and go in this country? Please, this time don't forget the millions and millions and millions of travelers and tourists, and business people.... migrant workers... illegal aliens... draft dodgers returning from Canada... Boooosh haters returning from Canada...
As any sane and logical person can see, the chances of being put to death for a crime you didn't commit are about 1 in a billion. :^)
So we start with the odds at 1 in a billion.
With those odds I am not afraid to take my chances!
Brian, I am open to any logical or factual input to change these odds, up or down.
kr - The official teaching of the church is not pro-death penalty at all. It is very anti-death penalty. I am quite surprised to read that in your comment, and wonder which church would happen to be teaching that.
Personally I am anti-death penalty, but not for the reasons Gino notes.
Ironic, very ironic.
Because of capital punishment/death penalty Jesus died for our sins. Without the death penalty... no crucifixion...
Isn't it ironic. Don't ya think.
K-rod, What you refer to as "past improvements" are already figured into the current statistics. Also, I commend your prescience with being able to quantify "future continuous improvements," into your "1 in a billion" estimation.
Gino, I think your argument is a good one - justice is NOT blind, the system is polluted with money and privilege. (For me it's not only about our inability to judge with 100% accuracy.)
Amanda, true, the past improvements are figured into the current 1 in a billion odds.
Only a fool expects 100% perfection. I am no fool. r u ?
I am open to any new points that might increase the odds to, say, 1 in 800 million; but until then I'll take my chances at 1 in a billion and be grateful for the death penalty, in that Jesus died for our sins.
In your heart you know I am right. :^)
Please folks, a little more constructive thought and a little less dogma.
"polluted with money and privilege"
Then work on the root cause instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
k rod: any system , especially one of govt, is poluted with money and privilage. its the nature of systems administered by man.
as you can never be assured of 100% perfection, you can be assured of a polluted free system,either.
but, you still havent made a case as for why you are willing to accept the possibility, however remote, that an innocent man will die for a crime he didnt commit.
you've only stated that you are fine with it, and give no reasons why we should be as well.
Gino, yes, man is fallible, that doesn't mean we should scrap the idea of courts meting out punishment.
There is always a chance that a person will be convicted of a crime they did not commit and be sent to prison and die in prison from non-natural causes. It happens; prison is ugly. That doesn't mean we should scrap the whole court/prison system.
I said 1 in a billion is an acceptable risk, not that I am fine with it.
I am not the one demanding 100% perfection. I am the one being realistic and accepting the risk. If I was 100% fine with the risk I wouldn't be calling for continuous improvement.
Imprisonment for some is a fate worse than death.
Innocent people die all the time, via car accident, police shooting... but we accept those risks.
Why won't you accept this risk of 1 in a billion of being put to death for a crime you didn't commit?
I know you can do this, so join me in saying:
Although I abhor even the thought of a person being put to death for a crime they did not commit, I can accept the 1 in a billion risk and support the death penalty while demanding improvements in the judicial system to keep that risk as low as possible.
dont condescend to me.
i'm not talking about scrapping the whole system, as you seem to accuse me of.
i'm saying capital punishment is too final. once done, there is no going back. the innocent will never be made right.
and rejecting capital punishment would be "an improvement that keeps that risk as low as possible." your words.
Amanda--
Pope John Paul II came out against the death penalty, particularly in America, but last time I checked (I was surprised to find that) the official Church teaching was that societies that had reasonable need of the death penalty (no reasonable long-term incarceration options, for instance) and a just (as possible) judicial process, could morally choose to use the death penalty to protect the rest of society from otherwise uncontrollable dangers.
Now, this particular piece of practical theology has come under finer and finer tuning as the world has developed less and less visceral cultures, and PJPII's repeated clarifications near the end of his life were part of that pattern, but it's unlikely they will do away with it altogether, at least in our lifetimes. When PJPII started speaking to encourage people not to support the death penalty, there was quite a lot of talk in Catholic-apologetic circles about it (I used to read and listen to Catholic Apologia), and although many apologists were very sympathetic to PJPII's viewpoint, personally, I don't think I ever heard one who thought he was teaching Ex Cathedra (the very rare choice by a Pope to speak using the unique Grace of Infallibility, for those who aren't Catholicism geeks)--and many, being the logic geeks they are, went out of their way to state that he specifically wasn't.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, items 2266 and 2267:
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/criminal/catechism.shtml
(this is significantly stronger a statement than the 1994 draft, by the way)
so in the end, I am not saying, I think we should kill lots of people, nor that I *want* to kill people (easily misinterpreted I see from my first statement), just that, I don't think it is reasonable to remove the possibility entirely from moral action.
the 1997 version removes the "analogous" reference to armed force ... interesting. Perhaps another day I'll go online-searching to see why/if they just moved it. Gino, do you know?
"You pulled a number out of your ass."
Your math and logic is sorely lacking.
*typing really really slow for you*
The math is quite simple, take the number of innocent people wrongly put to death divided by the total number of people coming and going throughout this country. You will find the odds of being put to death for a crime you did NOT commit to be about 1 in a billion.
Brian, only a moron would claim there is about a 1 in 20 million chance of being put to death for a crime you did NOT commit. With all due respect, are you delusional?
Maybe your dogma is preventing you from seeing how ridiculous that claim is.
With odds of that magnitude you should easily be able to list at least 20 people that were put to death for a crime they did not commit. So put up or STFU.
.
.
In your heart you know I am right.
"i'm not talking about scrapping the whole system"
Sorry old bean, but, with all due respect, your selectivity is a bit condescending.
Who are you to say rotting in prison for decades is better than a quick and painless death?
So please tell us how you can right that wrong? Will you also reject life in prison?
I reject your double standard.
So, Gino, join me in saying:
Although I abhor even the thought of a person being imprisoned or put to death for a crime they did not commit, I can accept the 1 in a billion risk and support the death penalty while demanding improvements in the judicial system to keep the risk of convicting a person of a crime they did not commit as low as possible. :^)
Why can't we let people make the decision for themselves if they want to die? Because they're not suffering if they kill themselves? Do you, personally (I address everyone here) really want to make any one suffer? This is what I mean by forcing you each to imagine yourself, feel the trigger in your hand, put it up to your own head, imagine the coldness of the barrel, its missile penetrating with a deep eternity the life you've known, then imagine placing that barrel against another human being's head, consider how similar he or she is, imagine pulling that trigger, feeling it's initial resistance as if calling your attention to what humanity alone can never know: the finality of a thing unliving, broken down to matter that is however always conserved in the unmonitored mystery of that which no mind can approach.
Such questions of the value of life and death are mere abstractions until the rope is around YOUR neck. Let the government assist in self-prescribed suicides if you want to spare people suffering. Making that call for them as if in their interest is absurd.
I suspect these opinions are ignorant, but if nothing else perhaps they'll amuse you.
To K-Rod, I don't know what your relationship with Gino is like, but I would warn you that snark such as in your comments is all-too-easy to misinterpret in this medium. With or without the emoticons, the condescension seems on some level to be real.
K-Rod, do you speak this way to people in real life?
How amusing, indeed.
.... .... ....
To tully, sorry if you see my grumpy-old-man-ishness as snark, so try to step back and see the differences between infer and imply, and don't confuse the fact that I am right with condescension. ;^)
.... back on topic ....
"Do you, personally (I address everyone here) really want to make any one suffer?"
Maybe, depending on the circumstances.
.... .... ....
"the courage to take it in hand, to pull the trigger at the back of someone's head."
"Could you?"
Yes, depending on the circumstances.
.... back off topic ....
Brian, "this way"? Please elaborate. Do you mean showing people the errors in their math and logic? Since when is trying to help a person wrong?
And, Brian, what part of this discussion do you consider fake life?
Depending on the circumstances, sometimes I curse worse than a sailor. Darn near make a longshoreman blush. But I never utter the effinhimer around my aunt.
.... back on topic ....
What I am saying is that there will always be some uncertainty in a conviction but such a small degree of uncertainty is not a logical reason not to met out punishment.
Suffering is not evil, Tully, it is just suffering. I object entirely to the implication that someone who is suffering should be assumed to be better off, not suffering.
There is always a tradeoff--by suffering this, what greater good might be accomplished?
Choosing to bother with college = (fairly long term) suffering I thought might lead to a greater good. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.
As a Catholic, this same dimension, of suffering for the greater good, takes on a whole new dimension through the example of Jesus--a person suffering for the good of others. Sacramental suffering. All suffering, including end of life (per PJPII's recent example), can be offered to God for redress of wrongs (or whatever). It's like donating money to a charity without telling them what specific project it needs to go to.
All of which isn't terribly related to the original question.
As for the facing death thing, I'm really not that worried about it. The kids have people who would take care of them. If there is an afterlife, I'm aiming to be set up for it whenever it hits, and if there isn't, who really cares anyway? (I mean, I know people do, but seriously--if you are just dead, there is no real point in stressing about being dead ... I suppose the wishing you had accomplished more in life thing might apply in the final moments, but I'm pretty Zen on that: whatever I've accomplished, I've accomplished, whatever I haven't, I haven't, someone else can probably do it instead or it just won't get done.) Life is good, but death is part of life. It doesn't bother or frighten me.
K-Rod, Brian actually did some math (well, arithmetic, which is what I gather you were implying you were "citing"), and you are making assertions based on nothing but your own brain farts. Ceriously. If you are going to claim to engage someone on an intellectual level, pull up your big boy pants and bring on the numbers.
Otherwise, feel free to huff and puff, but don't expect anyone to bother taking you seriously. You are way out of control on this string. If it was snark I would be less irritated. You seem to be taking yourself seriously.
You seem not to appreciate the importance of integrity and maturity to content, K-Rod. In this case, the two are inextricably intertwined.
K-Rod: Actually, my math is lacking. The way I described, I counted people who died between 1989 and 2009 twice. So the total population is actually lower, and the odds are consequently higher than I said (though not by a great deal.)
I do find it interesting that you keep referring to my dogma. I haven't said one word on this thread about my position on the death penalty. I've merely challenged your assertion about the odds of the death penalty being unjustly applied, which you have yet to provide support for beyond repeating yourself in bold font.
The only delusion under which I've been operating here is that you are worth engaging in anything resembling an actual discussion.
This must be what tully was referring to when he said, "the importance of integrity and maturity to content":
"you are making assertions based on nothing but your own brain farts. Ceriously. ...pull up your big boy pants..."
kr, is that what YOU meant when YOU said "engage someone on an intellectual level"?!?!?!?
"Ceriously"?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
"Actually, my math is lacking." - Brian
That is painfully obvious. I am glad you finally admitted it.
The first step is admitting you have a problem. I will try to help you.
*typing even slower this time*
Determining the odds of being put to death for a crime you didn't commit is extremely simple from a mathematical standpoint.
Simply divide the number of people that have been put to death for a crime they did NOT commit by the TOTAL number of people that come and go about this country. (Don't forget non-citizens, visitors, and illegal aliens this time. And don't try to "lower" the TOTAL population to come to your predetermined conclusion. How pathetic; got MMGW?)
Again, it's simple, take the number of people that have been put to death for a crime they did NOT commit and the TOTAL number of people.
Although I abhor even the thought of a person being imprisoned or put to death for a crime they did not commit, I can accept the 1 in a billion risk and support the death penalty while demanding improvements in the judicial system to keep the risk of convicting a person of a crime they did not commit as low as possible.
In your heart you know I am right.
KRod, I spell Ceriously like that when I want it to sound Valley Girl, because the C is weird and by its awkward presence imposes that little pause during the not-quite-eye-roll that properly leads into the actual verbal expression. And as I did not consider there to be much intellectual level going on, no I did not bother to engage in an intellectual manner.
The costs to society of keeping someone locked up (oh, do I wish there was some reasonable way to "reform" them) does not override the risk to our moral fabric that unjustified killing represents. End of story.
"no I did not bother to engage in an intellectual manner."
Obviously, and that is too bad, I really was hoping you would join me in some intellectual discussion. Oh bother.
.... ....
"Unjustified killing"?
.... ....
"End of story"? Is that like "the debate on MMGW is over so you shut up!!!"?
End of *my* story. Reason I have no interest in cantripping along to your hearty assertion of opinion.
Unjustified killing = killing of someone who didn't deserve to die
"...risk to our moral fabric that unjustified killing represents"
For the death penalty it's about a 1 in a billion risk, so your efforts would have more impact if you focused on cars running innocent people over... or bathtubs...
In your heart you know I am right.
How about the unjustified killing by light rail. How many innocent people have been killed by the Hiawatha Line? That risk is much much much higher. Where is the "moral" outrage over that innocent killing?
That train just ran over your reasoning. ;^)
OK, now I know K-Rod is just fucking with us. I refuse to believe that even he actually needs someone to parse the moral distinction between dying in an accident and being murdered by the state.
some people just like to trade shots while others are trying to have a discussion.
Ah, Brian, but light rail is an instrument of the state, don't you see?
'Nyhow, g'night on this one.
You know, one thing about blogging: we all like to think it's the deep coversation we're after, but if you take a hard line against a bit of trolling, or ignore it, you never graduate to forty comments. Of course, by calling what K-Rod's doing "trolling" I may be trolling myself, but the way I figure it: Why not go for eighty?
i thought this thread was dead three times already.
Why is it not wrong for YOU to place more value on one innocent life over another innocent life just to rationalize your discrepancies with regard to crime, punishment, the courts, and the rule of law?
Unfortunately in the real world innocent people die. Your odds of being killed by a train are much much much higher than being put to death for a crime you did not commit. Yes, Virginia, it really is that simple.
In your heart you know I am right.
Post a Comment