The best example at the moment is the question of the "constituionality" of the death penalty. The "three drug cocktail" debate that is before the U.S. Supreme Court is utterly surreal. First of all, an anesthetic is administered into the body, followed by pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. The former paralyzing all the muscles in the body and the latter causing cardiac arrest. The real issue that is before the Supreme Court is the possiblity of the anesthetic being administered incorrectly, followed by the condemned man suffering an excruciating death, trapped within his own body that is incapable of expressing the agony they are experiencing. Imagine waking up during open heart surgery, but unable to move or communicate that you are able feel your body being torn open. The possiblity of the anesthetic being incorrectly administered is all too real, especially when the hypocratic oath forbids real physicians from being present. I know very little about anesthetics, but I do know that being an anesthetist is almost as specialised and complex as being a surgeon, and the intricacies of putting a person "under" is somewhat of an art form.
The purpose behind a drug that paralyzes the muscles is to make the death easier for the community to swallow. A politician won't be able to sell to the public a form of execution that leaves the victim convulsing wildly on the table. Essentially, it's for our good that they are being stopped from expressing any signs of pain or agony. Justice Stevens recognised this,
“I’m terribly troubled by the fact that the second drug is what seems to cause all the risk of excruciating pain and seems to be almost totally unnecessary.”
It may seem that arguing about the constitutionality of lethal injection is conceding the legitimacy of the death penalty. I believe that arguing about humane murder is an exercise in futility, yet it does serve a valuable purpose. With every day that passes without an execution, the condemned are given a reprieve, the system loses momentum and opposition to the death penalty must inevitably grow from this. Take away the constant stream of executions and more and more people will lose the taste for it.
The death penalty is, of course, going to be a strong issue during the U.S. election this year, and I was disappointed to hear that all the Democratic candidates are pro-death. It almost seems like a political necessity to avoid appearing soft on crime.
Back home we have a similar problem with the Rudd government stating that “The Australian Government will intervene to oppose the death penalty only in the case of Australian citizens.” The words "intervene" suggests different emphasis than the Howard government which stated quite clearly that "I find it impossible … to argue that those executions should not take place when they have murdered my fellow countrymen and women." The difference in approach is in the nationality, rather than the nature of the crime. What I'm trying to say is, it's rational to say that Australia will not use forceful negotiation to save the lives of non-Australians on death row in other countries. It makes sense to me that a nation has no place to "intervene" in the autonomy of another nations democratic processes unless it threatens the lives of that former countries nationals. Voting at the United Nations for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty tells me that the Rudd government is pushing for a world free of state executions.
Even though Australia won't intervene in the executions of the Bali Bombers, it shouldn't support them through silent approval. There is a thin line between refusing to "intervene" and condoning something. An official government policy that states that Australia does not support executions has just been made to the U.N., so why can't we say the same thing to Indonesia? It's not "intervention" to simply state our stance on a matter.
And then that contradictory, racist and political head rears itself. Mr. Rudd will never intervene to save the lives of a terrorist. What about an Australian terrorist? Is this why David Hicks spent 6 years in an illegal prison without trial, because he was a terrorist? What if David Hicks was facing a firing squad in America after being found guilty of terrorist acts? I call this view contradictory because to say we will never condone the executions of Australians, but never save the lives of terrorists creates a huge logical gap. I call it racist because it suggests that terrorists only come from elsewhere, and that it's not possible that they could originate from "white" Australia. Right now Kevin Rudd's approach on the death penalty is purely political. He's playing the game, pandering to what we want to hear, but he's talking himself in circles.
So why does politics always breed the wrong focus on the issues behind capital punishment? The rhetoric that is used by politicians when they talk about the death of other human beings simply creates static around the issue. So many people have no idea that executions in America are on hold. So many people in Louisiana have no idea that the rape of a child attracts the death penalty. Why are so many Americans disinformed or disinterested in the process? It almost seems like state killing is a political toy born of ignorance and fear. I know that I can't change the fact that politics is mercurical and pragmatic by nature, but if I had my way I'd make those politicians a little bit more aware of just what their gambling with.
Quote of the day:
"How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?"
-Bob Dylan
No comments:
Post a Comment