Tuesday, September 26th 2006
Win the battle, lose the war?
Execution by lethal injection is about to go on trial in California:
Attorneys for Michael Morales, who was sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of Terri Lynn Winchell in Lodi, will try to show that California’s procedures violate the 8th Amendment to the Constitution because they may inflict unreasonable pain upon inmates.
The case has ramifications not only for the 638 individuals scheduled to die in California but for inmates in other states, including Maryland and Missouri, where court challenges to lethal injection are also pending…
The issue may wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The goal here is to ban a potentially “cruel and unusual” execution method. However, I believe that the big picture goal is to end the death penalty alltogether. What I wonder, in cases like these, is whether the wrong strategy is being used.
Suppose that the lethal injection (in its current form) is ruled unconstitutional. Wouldn’t the state just find change the chemical composition of the injections, or use an entirely different “approved” method? The winners of the case have spared the condemned only from the “cruel and unusual” part of an execution, not the execution itself. Of course the victory may be of inherent value (preventing suffering), but does it advance the larger cause?
I think it could even hurt the cause. Hypothetically, what if a mixture of chemicals existed that was scientifically proven to execute someone blissfully? What happens to the current strategy of knocking down individual execution methods on the basis of “cruelty”? All of that time was spent arguing the specifics of each method at the expense of arguing the bigger picture point. End result, the public is satisified with compromise while the activists return to square one.
The same pattern also applies to ending the War on Drugs. Medical marijuana, though a legitimate issue in itself, is not the same as full-blown legalization. The time spent arguing the medical uses of the plant does nothing to advance the philosophical arguments against prohibition. In fact, the whole issue gives credence to the notion that there has to be a good reason for a drug to be legal (and thus government has a role). If and when medical marijuana is legalized thoughout much of the country, what next? Argue for the medical use of another illegal drug? Square one.
Same thing for those wishing to outlaw abortion by first outlawing partial birth abortion, or those wanting to completely privatize schools by first supporting school vouchers. If the vast majority of people are satisfied with the compromise, then does that dilute the support for the larger issue? Is compromise worse than losing?
The counterarguments that I can think of are two: One, the subissue is something worth fighting for and at least a step in the direction. Two, the subissue can be a trojan horse by at least getting people to reconsider their viewpoints.
I don’t know. Any thoughts?
Personally, we should execute criminals by shooting them. Then we won’t have to worry about the effectiveness of drugs.
A bullet to the head always works.
Comment by Scott — 9/27/2006 @ 8:15 am
So would cutting off their heads. Probably even more effective - But then again, I don’t think the constitution is too concerned with how effective the killing methods are.
Comment by Archangel — 9/27/2006 @ 3:04 pm
All the more reason we need to elect Chuck Poochigian as Attorney General this fall.
Jerry Brown has a history of opposing the death penalty. In the 90s, when the Freeway Killer (William Bonin) was on death row for confessing to raping, murdering, mutilating, and then dumping the bodies of 21 teenage boys in Southern California, Brown was stumping to prevent his execution. Fortunately he failed.
Comment by CaliforniaGrown — 9/27/2006 @ 11:28 pm
But is it really worth the cost of having a dude named “Poochigan”?
Comment by Beetle — 9/28/2006 @ 12:22 am
Maybe because…GASP…The death penalty isn’t that effective?
Although for once, I think I agree with Beetle - how strong of a law enforcer can someone with the name Poochigan be? That’s like the silly villain from Police Academy.
Comment by Archangel — 9/28/2006 @ 7:29 am
On the contrary, the death penalty is MOST effective. It keeps murderers from being released so they can kill again. In this country alone, hundreds of people have been killed by paroled murderers.
YOU go tell the families of those murdered people that the death penalty for the first murder would not have been effective.
As I said above, a bullet to the head is quick and painless, if a bit messy.
Beheading is a psychological crime, far more horrifiying to the people who see it that the person it kills. This is why the jihadis use it. Barbarism sells!
Comment by Scott — 9/28/2006 @ 8:17 am
Right - bullet to the head is much less horrifying to the people who see it - I mean, it’s not like there’s famous images of people getting shot in the head, where people get kind of sickened by seeing it. Oh wait: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nguyen.jpg . JFK? RFK? I think you get my point.
If the motive is to prevent that ONE individual from murdering again, then life in prison is just as effective as killing them. The real point is that as a deterrent, it’s not as effective as people might like to think.
Comment by Archangel — 9/28/2006 @ 9:46 am
And quick and painless eh? When’s the last time you’ve been shot in the head? Or do you have fabulous research that backs up that claim?
Comment by Archangel — 9/28/2006 @ 9:49 am
I suspect Scott thinks “research” has a liberal bias.
Comment by Augie — 9/28/2006 @ 3:51 pm
That’s because they Do. Research is a liberal conspiracy to blind us from the truthiness.
Comment by Archangel — 9/28/2006 @ 5:54 pm
When one is executed, one will experience dying. Sadly for liberals, I don’t really care if it hurts. No guilt here; I simply couldn’t care less.
Life in prison? Are you sure? Any future governor can pardon anyone he wants or reduce a sentence, such as the former governor of Illinois did a few years back.
Look - murderers are evil people. They deserve to die. Hang them, shoot them, fry them, whatever. I really don’t care. And I don’t want to pay for them to sit in jail for decades - decades their victims never had a chance to live.
Comment by Scott — 9/29/2006 @ 7:58 am
So, for clarification, you were spewing nonsense you knew to be a lie when you said:
“As I said above, a bullet to the head is quick and painless, if a bit messy.”
Just checking.
Comment by Augie — 9/29/2006 @ 9:41 am
Ah, Scott, living in your world must be so easy - everything in its neat little place.
Nevermind the protections afforded by the United States Constitution - in fact, shouldn’t these punishments be excruciatingly painful, so that future evil doers will get the hint? Would it not make more sense to drag and quarter them - they are evil, after all, and deserve no better. I mean, if we don’t care what happens to people on death row, and we don’t, of course - why not use the most painful methods of death and torture imaginable? Hmmm….
Comment by Archangel — 10/1/2006 @ 3:12 am