No, this isn't a post about the Fugees; It's about an issue which I have seen becoming more and more prevalent in the politics and language used by nations and individuals who support capital punishment.
To put it quite simply, there is a growing discourse in certain States of America, and indeed other countries, concerning the violence of executions. When I say "violence" I am talking about not only the pain and suffering that the condemned goes through, but also the visual (both imagined and witnessed) impact it has on the community. This differentiation is important when examining the reasons for searching for a more "humane" form of execution. Is it an issue of compassion or merely a form of self-delusion?
To give a bit of a modern context, some States in America have currently imposed a temporary moratorium on the death penalty after a man took 2 hours to die and was seen convulsing violently as his body went into cardiac arrest. Other problems have been reported by the media, from attendants being unable to find the vein, to vein's collapsing entirely, and even to another dosage being administered due to a prolonged death. Also, in Indonesia, the Attorney General has stated that he will not execute the 6 of the Bali 9 sentenced to death by firing squad, but rather by lethal injection. No doubt a political compromise aimed at lessening the outrage from the Australian people.
This moratorium in America creates an incredible opportunity for a real discussion on the humane issues behind capital punishment and for the topic to gain a platform in the forefront of the minds of people around the world. However, I am not so enthusiastic about this development because I feel like it is a massive diversion from the real issue. My contention is that when it comes to the humane issues of capital punishment, this approach is looking in the wrong direction and asking the wrong questions. They are focusing on how the execution impacts on our own sensibilities, rather than the cruelty with which it is imposed on the condemned. These two elements are difficult to distinguish, but I'll try my best to make it clear.
Let me use a bit of an historical example from the French Revolution. The predominant method of execution in France in 1792 was the guillotine. The guillotine was lauded by many revolutionary French philosophers and politicians as "the great equalizer." It was an instrument that made all men equal, both practically and symbolically. This idea that all men are created equal was predominantly pushed into mainstream thought by Rousseau and later enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (La Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen). Where this idea of equality becomes important to the context of executions is found in the privileges of the Noblesse Oblige preceding the revolution. When convicted of a capital offence they could choose to be executed by a sword through the heart which was generally seen as a more noble form of death. On the other hand, your common peasant would suffer from all manner of torments, most commonly a simple, often blunt, axe to the back of the neck.
It's clear that the difference between the two forms of execution are separated by the social and cultural mores of the time, more so than the humane nature of the execution. But the guillotine changed this unequal system drastically. All men would be executed by the same instrument. No single man delivered the killing blow, the natural force of gravity brought the blade to its inevitable conclusion. All men were laid down flat upon a platform that sat at eye level. Everything was equal, everything was balanced. Kings, Queens, nobles and peasants all met the same end. It is not hard to see why this invention was praised as a moment of enlightenment and progression for the people of France and their justice system.
The French Revolution changed the Western world forever, and there is no doubt that the guillotine was a huge step towards realising the cruelty that can be involved in capital punishment. But are we being directed away from the real issue when we focus on making executions more humane?
Our reasons, as human beings, for attempting to sanitise executions are quite simple, but extremely misguided and selfish. Quite simply, it is absurd to talk of "humane" executions, when the issue is not one of humanity. It is about keeping our own hands clean by killing as furtively as possible. The less seen and the less heard, the less it impacts on our psyche. In essence, it is purely selfish.
It is not an issue of cruel and unusual punishment as we are so often told. Let me bring you back to the example of the guillotine to make this point clearer. The guillotine would cause death by decapitation. The razor sharp blade would drop at a tremendous speed and deliver a direct and precise blow to the neck, severing arteries and nerves instantly. If the victim does not die instantly from massive blood loss to the brain, they would almost certainly be rendered totally unconscious from the force of the blade. However, imagine if you will, the massive amounts of blood that would burst out of the neck after the decapitation. The horrible crunching sound of the blade slicing through the spinal cord and the incredibly thick and sturdy neck muscles. This gruesome sight is something that would no doubt send most of us running to our mothers sucking on our thumbs. It is easy to be disgusted by such a nightmarish spectacle and it is therefore no wonder that it is no longer a method used in the Western world.
However, if the issue is truly the pain and the suffering of the condemned, how could we possibly look further than a swift decapitation? While there is some medical uncertainty in the area, the majority of medical thought suggests that unconsciousness would be instant and brain death 30 seconds subsequent. There are, however, unethical medical reports of dismembered heads responding to their names for almost 1 minute. Not to mention the famous tale of the execution of the greatest betrayer of the French Revolution. The execution of Charlotte Corday, the lover and murderer of French revolutionary writer Jean-Paul Marat, involved a scandalous moment when the executioner slapped her decapitated head, at which moment her eyes snapped open and her face assumed a look of absolute indignation. However, there are countless medical explanations for such an happening, but the truth was no doubt sensationalised to make the event far more gruesome and the stories more morbidly fascinating. The difference between decapitation and lethal injection is the palpable sensations that they create. You can see, smell and hear the brutal conclusion of the guillotine, yet it is quite the opposite with what the lethal injection tries to achieve. The killing agent is invisible, their suffering is muted and sterile. Totally silent in most cases.
No, it is not an act of compassion or humanity to spare the condemned from a cruel and unusual suffering. No matter what the method of execution, be it crucifying, hanging, gassing, shooting, electrocution or lethal injection, the same inhuman torture is still imposed on the condemned. What I am talking about has nothing to do with the method itself, it is the torment of waiting. The agonising and gut wrenching sense of impending death which can be prolonged over months and even years. The terrifying visions of the execution and the absolute torment of solitude. It is difficult to imagine the psychological impact of being confronted with being executed. The anxiety experienced in waiting for the moment of execution is so powerful that Ann Boleyn's executioner thought it compassionate when he said "Where is my sword?" and then quickly beheaded her without any more notice, all simply to make her think she had more time to live and to spare her the fear for even just a moment.
The reasons for killing softly and subtly are two fold. We kill gently to make ourselves feel more human, we kill quietly to make them seem less human. By showing them some compassion we are able to sanitise the violence and thus find it far less confronting. By killing them in a silent manner we are able to stop them from "raging against the dying of the light", we are able to stop them from exhibiting one of the most natural and human responses to death, we are able to make them "go gently into that good night". When no blood is shed we are shielded from the sobering realisation that when we bleed, we bleed the same. It is simply an issue of humanising ourselves and dehumanising the condemned.
Why are we so obsessed with sanitising the state sanctioned death of others? Why do we seek to find ways to kill as softly as possible?
The answer is simple: "Whatever helps you sleep at night..."
Quote of the day:
"Yet, once again, the mechanism demolished everything: they killed you discreetly and rather shamefacedly but extremely accurately."
- Meursault, Albert Camus' "The Outsider"
this is so dumb
ReplyDelete