The Execution Must Be Televised
I'm not for capital punishment -- because I don't think we have a right to take a life, except in self-defense, and because mistakes are too often made, and innocent people are sometimes executed.
But, if we are going to kill people, we shouldn't avert our eyes. In The New York Times, Zachary B. Shemtob and David Lat argue that executions should be televised:
EARLIER this month, Georgia conducted its third execution this year. This would have passed relatively unnoticed if not for a controversy surrounding its videotaping. Lawyers for the condemned inmate, Andrew Grant DeYoung, had persuaded a judge to allow the recording of his last moments as part of an effort to obtain evidence on whether lethal injection caused unnecessary suffering.Though he argued for videotaping, one of Mr. DeYoung's defense lawyers, Brian Kammer, spoke out against releasing the footage to the public. "It's a horrible thing that Andrew DeYoung had to go through," Mr. Kammer said, "and it's not for the public to see that."
We respectfully disagree. Executions in the United States ought to be made public.
Right now, executions are generally open only to the press and a few select witnesses. For the rest of us, the vague contours are provided in the morning paper. Yet a functioning democracy demands maximum accountability and transparency. As long as executions remain behind closed doors, those are impossible. The people should have the right to see what is being done in their name and with their tax dollars.
This is particularly relevant given the current debate on whether specific methods of lethal injection constitute cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violate the Constitution.
...A democracy demands a citizenry as informed as possible about the costs and benefits of society's ultimate punishment.
They fail to bring up one of the first things that occurred to me as I began reading their piece -- whether televised executions would lead to people committing horrific crimes in order to have a famously horrific death.
Sick but probably true. That was also one of my first thoughts.
How about something like court proceedings or the legislature - anyone who wants to show up can see the execution, and it's taped for future reference.
Ben David at August 2, 2011 12:10 AM
Well, regarding the suffering of Andrew Grant DeYoung, shouldn't he have considered that before he murdered his parents and kid sister? I don't know how he actually killed them, but surely a few seconds of discomfort before he expired doesn't seem unreasonable.
That said, I also don't support capital punishment. It's too expensive and too prone to errors. Also the SCOTUS seems to feel that mistakes made in which people are wrongfully convicted don't deserve compensation. So, since they're free to deprive us of 20 years of our lives, give or take, doesn't seem too far off from suggesting that if they wrongfully execute someone, his dependents are entitled to any compensation either.
I am sickened by this cavalier attitude of the SCOTUS toward our rights. "You went to jail over a crime you didn't commit and stayed for 20 years. That sucks. Sorry to hear it. Oh, well..."
Patrick at August 2, 2011 1:46 AM
"It's too expensive and too prone to errors."
Nice generality. Right up there with "All Southerners are rednecks".
In some cases, there IS NO DOUBT. And shying away from what has to be done is symptomatic of wanting to shift blame, to pretend violence doesn't happen. To pretend it only happens to "other people", to make excuses to do nothing, etc.
In some cases, there IS NO DOUBT. Yet, feeding the savages, the people who think that because they watch television they are entitled to pull a lever (on Casey Anthony, for instance), is also undesirable, because you do NOT want to blur the line between vengeance and justice.
I have no regard for the suffering of the clearly guilty. What? I'm supposed to feel sorry for a multiple murderer, when, if one victim had properly defended herself, he would have died from multiple gunshots?
How big a step is it from forbidding capital punishment to forbidding you from defending yourself with deadly force? Did you know there are people who already make that argument - that the State shouldn't kill criminals, so, neither should you? What, you want to be judge, jury and executioner, acting in haste because you see a knife and a stranger in your home? What's wrong with you? You can't possibly know better than the government!
I suggest that it's an American schizophrenia: that after a violent crime, the criminal must be treated tenderly.
What was suggested right here about the woman who killed her own children?
Radwaste at August 2, 2011 2:11 AM
When legitimate authority gives up the right to use force, including the death penalty, the use of force does not go away. Instead it devolves to the next level of society that is willing to use it. That is usually political extremists and criminals.
ken in sc at August 2, 2011 5:44 AM
"...we shouldn't avert our eyes."
Agreed - so if executions are shown, the format should be split screen, with the other side displaying crime scene/autopsy photos.
(Sure, this could never happen for the same anti-sensationalistic rationales executions shouldn't be shown, and for other rationales. But it's an interesting thought, dontcha think?)
mk at August 2, 2011 6:08 AM
Nice generality. Right up there with "All Southerners are rednecks".
Stopped reading here. I knew I was dealing with an idiot, so why continue?
Patrick at August 2, 2011 6:15 AM
Anyone who wants to CAN apply to watch the execution, at least here in texas. I can't agree with making it entertainment, though, which is what it will be seen as on TV. We are not Rome. I think capital punishment is a necessity. Yes, I'm sure an innocent person or two have died. It is simply unavoidable that some innocent people will suffer any given punishment, and I don't see death as worse in that case than life or near it in prison.
I don't agree with televising courtroom proceedings, either. The gallery is open (and should be) to anyone who cares to go down and watch.
momof4 at August 2, 2011 6:38 AM
> But, if we are going to kill people,
> we shouldn't avert our eyes.
1. The first comma is a brutal error. It savages the rhythms of the sentence... Like someone who interrupts you when you're saying "Good Morni..." BANG. Like you're warning the woman you're hitting on in a bar that you don't know how to dance.
2. Why not? Why not avert our eyes? We're going to wash our shit down the pipes, too, but plumbing is almost never transparent.
This essay by Hitch convinced me (for the moment) to be against capital punishment. And there are bread-&-circuses dangers to be considered, Yet decency is not about looking at the ugliest stuff up close all the time. I don't think You need to watch this because it's important is a convincing argument, even if it's true.
And in matters of morality and impersonal delivery of death, I'm much more concerned about our reliance on Predator drones. (Or whatever the popular brand is today.) In a very short number of years, the most powerful nation has developed a habit of deploying these things pretty whimsically.
Nobody talks about it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2011 6:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/02/the_execution_m.html#comment-2392535">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]I think we need to be clear about what we're doing by killing people, not "because it's important."
Amy Alkon at August 2, 2011 6:45 AM
Again— "Being clear" would translate, for many citizens, into a pornographic fascination with death. Soon enough, there would be "American Idol"-style voting through cell phones: "Text star 0797 if you think Bertrand will vomit before losing consciousness, or start 0798 if you think he'll power through until his last breath...!"
It's the same reason I'm against torture... Not out of compassion for the tortured— because let's face it, there are monsters on this planet who deserve it. But the effect on the torturer is too horrific to contemplate. There are places in the world where eleven-year-old boys dream of growing up to the guy who cuts the hands off of thieves. At this hour, the United States has that kind of thing under control.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2011 7:04 AM
I'm with Crid & momof4. Televising executions would eventually degrade them; they'd become just another form of entertainment. Or worse yet, something people surf through while flipping channels. "Oh, man, another boring execution is on CNN!". We're not in the middle ages, where deaths should be made into a spectacle, and the idea of real, live deaths becoming commonplace on TV is horrifying to me.
cornerdemon at August 2, 2011 7:13 AM
I can see the point about wanting to make sure that criminals aren't treated in a "cruel and unusual" way.. but really, I guess I don't care if their death is uncomfortable or painful. Obviously excluding falsely accused/innocent people.. a person with the death penalty suffering for a few minutes means nothing to me. To televise it, to make sure that it is NOT uncomfortable, bothers me a little because I prefer that there be fear of death in a person who is facing the death penalty for some horrible crime. Also, as unlikely as it is, if there is even a small chance of deterring a person from committing the crime for fear of a painful death, I'll take it.
Angie at August 2, 2011 7:46 AM
I'm very uncomfortable with this idea. To offer actual deaths this way is to make them into entertainment, and I don't think anyone's death should be objectified in that way. Whenever people tell me how violent Western culture is because of our movies and video games, I always point out that ancient Rome had real people being violently murdered for entertainment. Broadcasting executions is a big step in the wrong direction.
Jim S. at August 2, 2011 9:16 AM
Why would a state that shows the graphic anti-smoking commercials shrink at the opportunity to televise death?
It's disgusting is obviously no reason. Maybe they're saying capital murder is better than smoking.
OBL is still dead. You can't see it, even if you watched those people jump from the World Trade Center. Consistency is too much to expect.
MarkD at August 2, 2011 9:31 AM
> Consistency is too much to expect.
Huh?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2011 10:27 AM
I think executions should be televised, but only on pay-per-view cable so they can make money and reduce taxes. Also, the executions should be more inventive, like tearing people apart by four horses, one on each limb.
We could also save money by televising female criminals subjected to gang-rape and public humiliation.
Or, we could just rent out female criminals as love slaves. There is a lot of ways to save on taxes.
BOTU at August 2, 2011 12:46 PM
> gang-rape and public humiliation
Again with the... etc.
What was your childhood like?
You're dying to be asked, right?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2011 12:54 PM
I think a justice system can function with or without the death penalty. However, one thing that may be a problem in a system without a death penalty is the witness elimination problem.
If a pervert already gets life for raping a small child, and there is no death penalty, than you will find that you have a lot more crime victims that will be murdered to shut them up. In for a penny, in for a pound as my English grandmother used to say.
The only solution is to make life in prison the top penalty for a very few crimes and lessen the penalties for everything else, which of course, will put a lot more violent criminals back on the streets.
Isabel1130 at August 2, 2011 2:36 PM
Crid-
In the USA we execute criminals...surely making some money at it makes sense? Why let the public watch for free when we can charge admission and cut taxes.
How is gang-rape any worse than the gas chamber?
Seriously Crid, think it over: Would you rather be rolled and rump-diddled or fried in the electric chair?
BOTU at August 2, 2011 2:55 PM
"I knew I was dealing with an idiot, so why continue?"
Sure. Why read any contest of any point on which you have already made up your mind?
The prison industry wants you to put people in jail for life.
And when you do, you'll cheapen yourself, thinking that a cage is a fine place for a man. The murderer's living and breathing while the victim rots, and the victim's family lives on in fear, is fine with you.
But it'll never happen to you, so screw those other people.
In some cases, there is no doubt: people have a twisted idea of what crime IS.
Radwaste at August 2, 2011 4:47 PM
> rolled and rump-diddled
And that's after your "rim job" from this morning (for the hostess). No comment from you has ever included less than one reference to anal. Must you feign interest in any other matters, including military finance?
How old are you? Does your wife talk like this? Or your ex-wife? Do your siblings, employers or others? Do those who spend time with you regard you as daring and transgressive, or uptight and sullen?
Could this be any sadder? Isn't your work here done?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2011 6:59 PM
I was going to get a rim job but the matching tires made it all too expensive.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 2, 2011 7:08 PM
See, that was actually humorous. But the other guy, presumably a grown man, has been coming here for two years to share "poopy" jokes with strangers. How could it be more pathetic?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 3, 2011 10:09 AM
The death penalty is not as black and white issue as its debaters wish.
The death penalty is subject to the same errors that the judicial system is. As Patrick pointed out, a man in Texas was imprisoned for a crime he did not commit and spent almost 20 years in prison. What if he had been executed?
But the other side of that coin is, what if an unapologetic killer like Charles Manson escapes? What do we tell the family of his next victim? We could have executed him and protected society but we didn't. What good reason for keeping a killer alive ameliorates their loss?
Before you say he could never escape from a maximum security prison, remember that Manson's been getting cell phones smuggled in to him and texting with people on the outside ... although what on earth someone would want to text-chat with Charles Manson about is beyond me.
==============================
I agree with Crid and momof4 on it being better not to televise executions.
I do think it would be better if more people actually understood that their meat comes from once-living animals and that "capital punishment" is not just a phrase.
However, I have a hard time imagining our current society not putting the executions up on YouTube and getting thousands of hits as people willfully forget that a real, live person, albeit an evil one, is being killed in the video.
And the dis-association effect that would have on society would be much worse than the one that comes from getting meat in pre-wrapped packages at the grocery store.
Trivializing executions can do nothing but coarsen and cheapen society.
I don't think we should celebrate or trivialize executions (or any punishment of wrongdoers). Prisons [and executions] are a necessary evil.
==============================
The French Revolution held frequent public executions and the Revolution's leaders stoked the crowd's bloodlust to gain more power. Frenzied people gave up their freedoms for spectacles.
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2011 11:12 AM
"Frenzied people gave up their freedoms for spectacles."
And now we do it for convenience and "security".
Lest anyone miss my earlier point: there are cases in which there is no doubt. It is inconsistent, nearly schizoid, to insist that cases be tried individually, then ignore the ability to distinguish that not every case is an expensive spectacle.
Whatever you do, do not fail to defend yourself properly with lethal force when it is necessary, because it is clear that many people want policies that make sure the bad guy has another chance at you and your neighbors.
Radwaste at August 5, 2011 4:26 PM
Oh, and Conan?
"Trivializing executions can do nothing but coarsen and cheapen society" is right, but what we have trivializes criminal penalties, consequences for the evildoer. It's common knowledge that the sentence levied by a court doesn't really mean what it says.
Everyone should think about that.
Radwaste at August 5, 2011 4:31 PM
I agree Radwaste.
Not levying appropriate punishment (criminal penalties or societal reprobation) on trangressors of civilized behavior does cheapen society ... by making civilized behavior optional.
But that doesn't mean we should turn the application of that punishment into a circus. The subtly corrosive effects of doing that may be much worse than the sloppy application of justice.
No one argues that letting criminals go free is right when they point out that the prisons are over-crowded.
But a public execution will be seen as justified and righteous ... until it becomes a circus and by then it will be too late.
Conan the Grammarian at August 5, 2011 6:11 PM
Leave a comment