A Word with the Wardens of Death Penalty Woe...

...or a presentation of "Shock and Awe: A Perspective on the Death Penalty Debate"

Though the data I reference here is now a tad dated, it retains enough validity to underscore in red the extent to which I and others have been surprised to learn about the true scope and dimension of the death penalty debate. For one thing, I was greatly surprised to learn that - at the end of 2004 - there were as many as 3,314 prisoners awaiting their fate on death row in U.S. prisons, after they'd, of course, been sentenced to death.

What the data published in the voluminous reports issued year after year by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics do not tell, however, is that these death row inmates - plus all who preceded and will most certainly follow them - are at the crux of one of America's most bitterly controversial and hotly contested public policy debates.

Based on research and long years of experience, public policy discussion and debate nowadays has generally come to place a laser-beam singular emphasis on the relative merits of deterrence and, by logical extension, whether or not the death penalty succeeds in this singular and admittedly very important respect.

Advocates who oppose the death penalty feel that, under the U.S. Constitution, this sanction is considered in itself to be cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court has already largely rebutted that notion, however, as shown by the decision handed down in the case of Furman vs. Georgia. The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP), which sided with advocacy groups, conveyed the position that, "While the court ruled that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, it emphasized that it was only illegal in the way it was then administered." That decision went on to set the precedent for the capital punishment statutes now found in 39 U.S. states.

In the NCADP's position statement it is noteworthy to point out that the author, Michael Manville, continued his argument against capital punishment with a reiteration of an important point that has great significance concerning the death penalty. He explained that, "The death penalty has never been illegal in America and, despite recent controversy over its effectiveness, does not appear to be headed for extinction here anytime soon." He also pointed out in the same comments that, "This sets our country well apart from the rest of the industrialized world, which the latter half of the twentieth century not just divesting itself of capital punishment, but loudly calling for the rest of the planet to do the same." Something in Manville's even-handed and non-emotive comments certainly tend to compel each one of us to pay much closer attention to this debate, and to try to sift, sort and more closely examine the issue from its numerous, diverse, controversial, and perhaps most novel perspectives.

No one of rational mind would argue that the United States has been anything but the global standard-bearer of western ideals, at least insofar as the US has asserted itself as the unquestioned leader of the free world. As such, many argue, should it not be America's place and dutiful role to invoke freedom as an international standard? By logical extension, if it is our duty and moral obligation to be the leader of the free and the home of the brave - the leader among leaders of the free and democratic international community, why then, it is poignantly asked, are we in the company of other countries known for similarly harsh persecution of criminals? It's a matter that give pause for thought, and it's one that Manville illustrates in comments that go to the heart of the matter:

"Our esteemed company in the practice of state death includes such human rights luminaries as the Sudan, Kuwait, China, and republics of the former Soviet Union."
Considering Manville's blistering critique, we are compelled to logically ask, compared to these countries, when and what types of "sate death" methods used in the U.S. are thought to be inhumane?

In an article published in 2005 by the University of Alaska's Justice Center, it is related that the States and the Federal government are authorized to use five methods of execution, including:

- lethal injection
- electrocution
- the gas chamber
- firing squad, and
- hanging

Of these practices, only three states currently authorize the firing squad and hanging, five employ lethal gas chambers, 11 take part in electrocution, and 35 exercise lethal injection. One could surmise that, although state governments rely on lethal injection as a humane practice, none of the methods currently authorized by law have a deterrent affect on crime. If that is true, then we must surely be asking ourselves why on earth are these practices still around?

One reason may be that the victims who have had the life of a loved one taken away are so angry at the perpetrator that, to get any sense of justice, their closure only comes when the criminal is executed under a sentence of death. The question we may want to ponder is, why can there not be viable alternatives to serve justice besides the death sentence? Further, if there are no viable alternatives and what we currently have are the only agreed upon methods, how can these be enhanced or modified to have a greater deterrent affect?

Many come away from reading Robert Johnson's "This Man Has Expired: Witness to an Execution" feeling depressed, saddened, and emotionally drained. Some say they felt as if they had actually been witness to the execution described in the story. Johnson relates the intensity of what it is like to witness an execution in very vivid and graphic terms. For example, he gives the reader a stark backdrop against which to witness the scene of death through the guise of an interview with a correctional officer, who states, "A lot of em die in their minds before they go to the chair. By the time they walk to the chair they have already faced it. Such a reality most people can't understand."

That's what sparked for me a major lightbulb moment, and by extension - because it may perhaps do so for many other people as well is - we come to what, admittedly, inspired and compelled me to contribute this thought piece to Helium. The point is this: What if there were a way to have inmates actually view this horrific scene for themselves?

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional only in cases where it is incorrectly carried out. Advocates who oppose that decision continue with their fight to have the death penalty abolished. It is the opinion of many that, if the criminal justice system continues to use the death penalty as a form of deterrence, better ways should be found to bring the practice into alignment and compliance with our laws. If inmates could bear witness to the horrible experience which others have only read about and seen in their mind's eye, it is argued, they would then be able to see where their own actions would ultimately lead them.

The bottom line to be hoped for on all sides of the debate, in my humble opinion, is that such a measure could bring greatly reduced recidivism and, ultimately, justification for abolition of the death penalty - precisely because criminals themselves will then be able to confront the heinous nature of their crimes, show contrition for such heinous and inhuman acts, and work to rehabilitate themselves as a result of their actions.

Like all ideas, it's just another contribution to the public policy debate stewpot - but one that I heartily hope will gain some bipartisan recognition from lawmakers and judicial reform advocates on all sides and from all stripes (pardon the pun) of the political spectrum.