The guy who at the time ran Missouri's Capital Murder Division of the state public defender's office came to talk to one of my undergraduate classes. Mostly about how narrowly he had won and lost certain cases, can't remember the details. Missouri has executed 66 people since 1989, you can get a year by year break down by running a search here, though I can't link to my search results.
I keep trying to crack a joke about this, but they all just come out dyslexia jokes rather than death penalty jokes, so I'll just leave it. That said, I did misspell "dyslexia" three times trying to write that.
So what happens when they screw up and the guy's still talking/squirming/whatever? Do they just grab another syringe and see if that one does the job, or what?
Though I do not think the death penalty is acceptable (primarily based on the 'irreversible error' argument) I confess I think the need for 100% guaranteed "perfect" death is more than a bit ludicrous given the goal.
Torture? No, of course not. But c'mon, people off themselves daily. It's really NOT that hard to kill someone, you know. The problem is that there will often be some "possibility" of suffering in the process, so if that makes it illegal, it will be almost impossible to perform executions.
I think this is an odd side run. To me, the death penalty is a lot like the draft:
Want to reduce the tendency to have aggressive war? Draft everyone, rich whites included.
Want to reduce reliance on the death penalty? Start hanging (or shooting) people in public, or on public TV, don't forget to publicize the statements of the accused and their (frequent) please for mercy.
Sailorman, I don't think that public death is going to make people have more of a distaste for the death penalty. In fact, I think its gruesome aspects are what hold people to it, not drive them away from it.
But c'mon, people off themselves daily
What's your point? As far as I know, the focus on the suffering endured during execution has been mostly legal arguments designed to chip away at the death penalty. Most people who object to it do so on far more intrinsic (to the punishment) grounds.
I am surprised you think so. It has been my firm belief (supported by admittedly anecdotal conversations) that the death penalty is "out of sight, out of mind" for many people. And I think that makes it MUCH easier to kill them, and I think that's a bad thing.
An example might be this:
You might read in the NY times about the death penalty being applied to mentally incompetent folks. Sounds bad. You'll see a lot of "this is bad" commentary. LIkewise you might read about a prisoner fored to take medications to make him "sane" enough to kill.
But IMO more people would realize how horrible it is if/when they were forced to look at someone being killed who doesn't understand why. Or someone being forcefed Haldol and then led to the gallows. But then again it's also my belief that a lot of self-proclaimed patriots might feel differently regarding waterboarding if they actually saw some scared 19 year old being tortured regarding matters on which he knows nothing. Maybe I have too much faith in the human condition.
As it is, the deaths happen in a highly controlled environment, are not visible to the public, and exclude protestors. In fact, you can get the death penalty even if there are some pretty major procedural errors in your case. In essence thay have all the features which make them as easy as possible to continue. I would like to change that.
I've thought that before too, Sailorman. However, given the nature of most of America, the more likely outcome is that executions will immediately become one of the top 3 spectator sports in the country.
Sailorman, having executions out of sight, out of mind is an incredibly recent phenomenon in human history. It's not like humans only started executing people once it could be safely hidden away. In fact, executions used to be a much more common feature in the world than they are today, and the vast majority of them were carried out as a public spectacle.
For that matter, vegetarianism based on animal welfare concerns, as well as general squeamishness about meat, is much more common now that almost noone ever has to see an animal slaughtered. The common idea that noone would eat meat if they had to experience seeing an animal killed and butchered is completely contradicted by basically all of human history.
See, you'd think ever-expanding broadcast reach of the World Cup would force people to confront the essential boringness of watching soccer on television, but the comment threads here prove that very notion false. People, if anything, are more interested in it.
16: I may be missing your point, eb, but there's still plenty of actual slavery and its functional equivalents all around the world. Perhaps if everyone personally saw the conditions under which their sneakers or whatever were made, more of them would buy something else, but I really tend to doubt it.
I think you're right about that. But I don't think executions were still public when the death penalty was abolished in most of those countries. There's generally been an outcry against public executions as being barbaric, but that's pretty much resulted only in executions going behind closed doors. (The French guillotined people until 1977, but not publicly after 1939, I think). I don't think public executions would increase the popularity of the death penalty, and if someone proposed re-opening them I suspect death penalty proponents - aside from the most extreme "and we should torture them too" advocates - would oppose that move in part out of the worry that people would object to executions after seeing them. So I don't think Sailorman is wrong, but it's not likely the death penalty is going to go on display so it's pretty much an entirely hypothetical argument.
I guess I'm saying that while there's been a progression regarding executions from public to private to none, that's not necessarily an automatic process, and it's possible to backslide. In fact there were no executions in the US for at least four years (and longer in most states), but that didn't stop them from happening again, in some states with quite a vengeance (I'm SO proud to be a Texan). And I don't think going back to public executions would necessarily result in a big swing in the number of people wanting to abolish the practice.
I'm not saying it's automatic that witnessing an execution will generate opposition to executions. That's wrong, and Saudi Arabia and Iran are good counterexamples to that. I'm saying that in a country where public executions have been abolished it's unlikely that a return to public executions would increase support for capital punishment. I could be wrong, but if I'm wrong it's because I'm wrong about what people in that particular country think at this particular time, not because of Saudi Arabia, Iran, or (as in 14) the existence of capital punishment for most of human history, etc.
The guy who at the time ran Missouri's Capital Murder Division of the state public defender's office came to talk to one of my undergraduate classes. Mostly about how narrowly he had won and lost certain cases, can't remember the details. Missouri has executed 66 people since 1989, you can get a year by year break down by running a search here, though I can't link to my search results.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-27-06 1:03 PM
I keep trying to crack a joke about this, but they all just come out dyslexia jokes rather than death penalty jokes, so I'll just leave it. That said, I did misspell "dyslexia" three times trying to write that.
So what happens when they screw up and the guy's still talking/squirming/whatever? Do they just grab another syringe and see if that one does the job, or what?
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-27-06 5:09 PM
I think they wait -- 'fatal' is a much bigger, easier target to hit than 'swiftly, painlessly fatal'.
But I really don't understand this at all. How hard is a massive morphine overdose?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-27-06 5:13 PM
"I hope your last meal was a big one... this could take a while."
So fucked up.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-27-06 5:29 PM
a condition which causes him confusion with regard to numbers
You know, I'm also somewhat gravely concerned about the effects this has when he treats patients he's not planning to kill.
Also, Carey McWilliams' autobiography has been pwned.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-27-06 5:35 PM
The third google hit AOTW for Carey McWilliams leads to a very different person.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-27-06 7:04 PM
This sounds like the beginning of a supervillain origin. "Injected with an unreproducable mistaken blend of chemicals..."
Posted by DonBoy | Link to this comment | 06-27-06 7:05 PM
Yeah, but what would their powers be? A name with "necro" in there could really make or break the whole deal.
Also, I am stunned to realize that none of us have gone for the "gravely concerned" joke.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-27-06 8:54 PM
Though I do not think the death penalty is acceptable (primarily based on the 'irreversible error' argument) I confess I think the need for 100% guaranteed "perfect" death is more than a bit ludicrous given the goal.
Torture? No, of course not. But c'mon, people off themselves daily. It's really NOT that hard to kill someone, you know. The problem is that there will often be some "possibility" of suffering in the process, so if that makes it illegal, it will be almost impossible to perform executions.
I think this is an odd side run. To me, the death penalty is a lot like the draft:
Want to reduce the tendency to have aggressive war? Draft everyone, rich whites included.
Want to reduce reliance on the death penalty? Start hanging (or shooting) people in public, or on public TV, don't forget to publicize the statements of the accused and their (frequent) please for mercy.
Posted by Sailorman | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:00 PM
Um yeah, Sailorman, that approach worked wonders at reducing application of the death penalty these last several millenia.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:08 PM
Sailorman, I don't think that public death is going to make people have more of a distaste for the death penalty. In fact, I think its gruesome aspects are what hold people to it, not drive them away from it.
But c'mon, people off themselves daily
What's your point? As far as I know, the focus on the suffering endured during execution has been mostly legal arguments designed to chip away at the death penalty. Most people who object to it do so on far more intrinsic (to the punishment) grounds.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:16 PM
I am surprised you think so. It has been my firm belief (supported by admittedly anecdotal conversations) that the death penalty is "out of sight, out of mind" for many people. And I think that makes it MUCH easier to kill them, and I think that's a bad thing.
An example might be this:
You might read in the NY times about the death penalty being applied to mentally incompetent folks. Sounds bad. You'll see a lot of "this is bad" commentary. LIkewise you might read about a prisoner fored to take medications to make him "sane" enough to kill.
But IMO more people would realize how horrible it is if/when they were forced to look at someone being killed who doesn't understand why. Or someone being forcefed Haldol and then led to the gallows. But then again it's also my belief that a lot of self-proclaimed patriots might feel differently regarding waterboarding if they actually saw some scared 19 year old being tortured regarding matters on which he knows nothing. Maybe I have too much faith in the human condition.
As it is, the deaths happen in a highly controlled environment, are not visible to the public, and exclude protestors. In fact, you can get the death penalty even if there are some pretty major procedural errors in your case. In essence thay have all the features which make them as easy as possible to continue. I would like to change that.
Posted by Sailorman | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 1:57 PM
I've thought that before too, Sailorman. However, given the nature of most of America, the more likely outcome is that executions will immediately become one of the top 3 spectator sports in the country.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:03 PM
Sailorman, having executions out of sight, out of mind is an incredibly recent phenomenon in human history. It's not like humans only started executing people once it could be safely hidden away. In fact, executions used to be a much more common feature in the world than they are today, and the vast majority of them were carried out as a public spectacle.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:04 PM
For that matter, vegetarianism based on animal welfare concerns, as well as general squeamishness about meat, is much more common now that almost noone ever has to see an animal slaughtered. The common idea that noone would eat meat if they had to experience seeing an animal killed and butchered is completely contradicted by basically all of human history.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:09 PM
A counterexample is abolitionism, but I've got a soccer game to watch.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:12 PM
See, you'd think ever-expanding broadcast reach of the World Cup would force people to confront the essential boringness of watching soccer on television, but the comment threads here prove that very notion false. People, if anything, are more interested in it.
Such is the perversity of the human condition.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:16 PM
Apo, if you're not watching the game, why don't you go out and get some beer and groceries for the rest of us? Thanks.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:18 PM
Sorry, I'm at work.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:21 PM
16: I may be missing your point, eb, but there's still plenty of actual slavery and its functional equivalents all around the world. Perhaps if everyone personally saw the conditions under which their sneakers or whatever were made, more of them would buy something else, but I really tend to doubt it.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:28 PM
This isn't going to be worth the time.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:30 PM
21: That's never stopped us before!
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:36 PM
Oh, you were talking about the game . . .
Weren't you??
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:36 PM
On the other hand, sometimes the death penalty has been abolished for counterintuitive reasons.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:41 PM
I've read several things arguing, convincingly, that European public opposition to the death penalty is a product of its abolition, not a cause.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:54 PM
I think you're right about that. But I don't think executions were still public when the death penalty was abolished in most of those countries. There's generally been an outcry against public executions as being barbaric, but that's pretty much resulted only in executions going behind closed doors. (The French guillotined people until 1977, but not publicly after 1939, I think). I don't think public executions would increase the popularity of the death penalty, and if someone proposed re-opening them I suspect death penalty proponents - aside from the most extreme "and we should torture them too" advocates - would oppose that move in part out of the worry that people would object to executions after seeing them. So I don't think Sailorman is wrong, but it's not likely the death penalty is going to go on display so it's pretty much an entirely hypothetical argument.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:06 PM
Stonings and beheadings still seem pretty popular in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:08 PM
Countries whose opinions aren't really relevant to the death penalty in the US or Europe.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:12 PM
27 - And then there are the stoned beheadings.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:14 PM
I guess I'm saying that while there's been a progression regarding executions from public to private to none, that's not necessarily an automatic process, and it's possible to backslide. In fact there were no executions in the US for at least four years (and longer in most states), but that didn't stop them from happening again, in some states with quite a vengeance (I'm SO proud to be a Texan). And I don't think going back to public executions would necessarily result in a big swing in the number of people wanting to abolish the practice.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:20 PM
I'm not saying it's automatic that witnessing an execution will generate opposition to executions. That's wrong, and Saudi Arabia and Iran are good counterexamples to that. I'm saying that in a country where public executions have been abolished it's unlikely that a return to public executions would increase support for capital punishment. I could be wrong, but if I'm wrong it's because I'm wrong about what people in that particular country think at this particular time, not because of Saudi Arabia, Iran, or (as in 14) the existence of capital punishment for most of human history, etc.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:27 PM