"Last Suppers" - An Artistic Perspective

The macabre tradition of allowing a condemned man to choose his last meal is as fascinating as it is bizarre. The idea of one show of mercy or compassion before an act of intolerable cruelty creates a sad and complex dichotomy, but it is one that is employed in nearly every instance where the death penalty is used. It's difficult to pin down any definite reason behind why this tradition still exists, but it is certainly deeply rooted in history. There's no doubt that it is intended as an act of compassion, one that is meant to comfort both the condemned man and to appease the conscience of the executioner. It almost seems that by accepting this act of generosity the condmned man is absolving the executioners by accepting the act of generosity.

An artist by the name of James Reynolds from Kingston University has researched "last supper" requests from men on death row, and photographed them on a standard prison issue tray. He has not stated any political or moral point of view, it is purely for your own interpretation. What do you make of it? Here are my thoughts -

The sentiments that accompany the imagining of ones last moments before being executed, to me, is a sort of foray into an emotional abyss. Like that existential feeling that envelopes you when you stare at the stars for hours on end, totally overwhelmed by the infinite universe right before your eyes, but at the same time so totally aware of your own mortality and insignificance. Would this meal actually give them any comfort at all? Would you even be able to contemplate eating? I lose my appetite simply imagining the situation. How consumed you would be with the thought of your fast approaching death. Imagining the final steps towards the gallows, imagining the shock of coming in to full view of the place of execution, the helplessness upon being blindfolded and shackled. All of these imaginings are tortures that act as a sort of prolonged execution for the accused. It's almost like the hands of death are reaching back through time and grasping at your conscious, pulling you towards it long before your time has come. This extended suffering is cruel beyond all measure.

I've talked about the suffering experienced by those close to someone who is executed. The best way to get any sort of idea on the suffering that must be experienced by a condemned person on death row is from people who experienced it themselves and have survived due to exoneration or a permanent reprieve.

Sakai Menda, a Japanese man who spent 34 years on death row in Japan, put it in this way:

"It’s strange when they near your cell. You lose all your strength and you are like this. You lose all your strength as if a rope is dragging it out of you. Then the footsteps stop in front of another solitary confinement cell and when you hear the sound of the key turning you feel relieved." 

It's particularly topical considering that at the moment the system of capital punishment in Japan is under scrutiny at the moment as inmates languish on death row and their mental state is seriously deteriorating. What a perfect example of the incredible tortures that one undergoes in such a situation.

Darby Tillis was sentenced to death and eventually exonerated, and described his time on death row as such:

"Whether a death sentence is carried out in six minutes, six weeks or six years, the person set for death begins to suffer the most cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. Death row is segregated from the rest of the general inmate prison population. You’re warehoused for death, treated like contaminated meat to be disposed of. You sit there and await death, and the pain you know will come to you one day" 

As I said earlier, if accepting a last meal is an act of tacit forgiveness from the condemned man towards his executioner, then clearly some of the accused use this gesture to make a statement that speaks louder than words.

  

Taking the time to really appreciate the meaning behind these photos would no doubt reveal different meanings to different people. To me it's an image of loneliness and of humanity. Our need to eat in order to survive is an instinct we all share, even with a man who is condemned to die. But in this situation you have a person with no hope of surviving more than a day, yet set before them is a meal, a last supper. As vulnerable and as human as the rest of us. The uniformity of the orange tray, and the symetrical arrangement of the food seems to represent the organised, cold and calculating process that is the death penalty. Humanity and inhumanity, or man's inhumanity to man. It's an incredibly powerful juxtaposition that, to me, throws away considerations of justice, right or wrong, and leaves you with a person who you cannot dismiss as an "aberration" or a "monster".

Quotes of the day: (A special double feature. One in memory of the late Ted Kennedy.

"My brother was a man of love and sentiment and compassion. He would not have wanted his death to be cause for the taking of another life."

- Edward Kennedy

"I prayed in the morning I would be able to sleep at night, I prayed at night I would be able to wake up in the morning."

- Ronaldo Cruz (Wrongfully convicted in 1983 and sentenced to death. Exonerated by DNA evidence)

Fighting For Peace

The difficulties of intervention in international conflicts is one of the most complex issues of International Humanitarian Law. When is it justified to intervene in a conflict? What kind of peace keeping activities are justified? How do you solidify peace between two warring parties without seeming partisan to one cause?

These questions are constantly undergoing intense debate and discussion, but the real question I'm interested in is how a massacre like Srebrenica can be allowed to occur while the eyes of the entire world rest on the Balkans?

In the case of the conflict in Bosnia it's incredibly challenging. The United Nations were the envoys of peace and inserted thousands of UN Protection Forces (UNPROFOR) into Bosnia to regulate and observe the conflict from the ground. While behind the UN was NATO, the big stick that could be waved in situations of non-compliance with UN sanctions.

In the case of Srebrenica the UNPROFOR were drastically under prepared for imposing any kind of influence over the Serbian troops that lay siege to it. To make matters worse, Bosnian government troops organised attacks and rallied within the "safe zone" of Srebrenica.

Srebrenica wasn't at all safe, infact it was being actively used as a military base for Bosnian troops, and at the same time the UN troops who were protecting the enclave were lightly armed with no mandate to protect with force. So when the Serbian troops overran Srebrenica it's no surprise that the UNPROFOR could do nothing to stop them. It reminds me of a quote from the book Emergency Sex, "If blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeepers show up in your town or village, and offer to protect you, run."

The frustration that must have been felt by the Dutch troops who were helpless to stop the ensuing chaos. Frustration towards the Bosnian troops commanded by Naser Oric who constantly flouted the town's status as a safe haven.

There's no doubt that the situation in Srebrenica was complex. The UN had not secured the safe zone effectively, they were unable and unequipped to defend it, the Bosnian troops continued to launch attacks from within it and the Serbian troops lost patience and made a move on the town. Does this justify or excuse the mass execution of thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys? It's hard to believe, but there are those who defend the actions of the Serbian forces, excuse those in command of them, and even go so far as to deny the genocide ever occured. Arguments are plentiful for denying any genocide occured. A column of Bosnian troops continued fighting around Srebrenica as they retreated after the town was taken. In other words, the men who died in Srebrenica were legitimately killed during the fighting. That the numbers were greatly exaggerated by people who simply went missing in the chaos and were never killed. That the few mass killings were undertaken by out of control militants with no affiliation to the Serbian (VRS) forces.

The facts remain, and shine through all the misinformation. Bodies were found ligatured, blindfolded and horrifically beaten. Bullets were traced back to the guns of Serbian troops. DNA identified thousands of unique individuals. Mass graves were dug quickly and concealed. The tragic list of facts goes on and on. If to forget a genocide is to "kill twice", as Elie Wiesel put it, then to deny its occurence is to kill ad infinitum.

It's not in the international communities interests to fabricate this atrocity. So much blame falls on those in a position to stop the genocide. If no genocide had occured, the use of force by UN and NATO forces would have seemed utterly disproportionate. Afterall, there were so many opportunities to stop the catastrophe from occuring, but it's easy to see the right answer to such decisions in hindsight. Making decisive decision in a warzone that are intended to maintain peace must be a nearly impossible situation. Romeo Dallaire writes about his experience of helplessness in Rwanda in his book "Shake Hands with the Devil", which I have every intention to read as soon as I get my hands on it.

How is it that so many can be murdered while the international community watches? It would seem that the confusion of warfare can muddy the waters to such an extent that almost anything can be concealed in the fog of war.

Because of all this uncertainty, because the whole war was a mess of deeply rooted political, social and economic problems, it seems to be possible for people to say, with a straight face, "Perhaps Srebrenica wasn't really a genocide". Some revisionist historians still deny or lessen the scale of the Holocaust, even though this position usually makes them a historical pariah. Is it more acceptable to cast doubt on Srebrenica because of all the "fog" that surrounds the war, or perhaps because it wasn't on the same scale? For certain the crimes weren't as black and white as can be found in the Holocaust, and it is no where near the same scale. But the test for genocide is not a comparative test with the Holocaust. The Rome Statute defines it as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

In 2004 the ICTY Appeals Chamber ruled in the Krstic case that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide. There has to be some point where, much like the Holocaust, it becomes insensitive and unnescessary to still question the merits of this decision. Like flogging a dead horse, only this horse can be replaced by millions of people who are still very closely affected by the massacre. Misinformation and doubt are core elements of warfare, and so black and white, right and wrong, are always difficult concepts in International Humanitarian Law.

Quote of the day:

"There is a loneliness about peacekeeping, especially when it is divorced from peacemaking."