Search This Blog

Saturday, August 26, 2017

On Capital Punishment - Part I


There are executions taking place in the country all the time.

Some states like Texas, and Oklahoma have systems of capital punishment that move people through, bringing them to their final-end with systematic ease.

In recent years there are many states who have had to change the methods by which they execute people because the drugs that they used to bring about a painless death have been restricted from the use in capital punishment by their manufacturers.

The stock piles of these drugs have run out, or expired. There are no new protocols for how to carry out lethal injections, and because these protocols are required to be spelled out in advance, and adhered to closely, some states have had to discontinue their executions.

Some states have tried to approve different methods, such as the firing squad, or hanging. They have encountered challenges in court on the grounds that those methods meet the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Other states, have tried illegally to procure the drugs spelled out in their protocols. There are investigations and prosecutions underway for these crimes.

Some states have simply made up new rules, approved new drug protocols, without testing them, these executions have had horrible results, causing the subjects pain, having to be halted after hours of failure, restarted and failed again.

Capital punishment in the United States is a fiasco, the motivations behind it are fraudulent and a facade.

The death penalty does not deter crime, it does not make the public any safer. It is revenge killing, plain and simple, and because our systems of justice are flawed, innocent people are put to death.

I hear apologists for the death penalty suggest that this is okay, that Americans are willing to accept an imperfect justice system, even one that occasionally executes innocent people, as long as they also believed that it deterred crime.

It does not actually have to deter crime, the people just need to believe that it does.

Former Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, William Rhenquist said: “Innocence is not a bar to the implementation of justice.” 


The sentiment is this: as long as a person has been duly convicted, and properly sentenced, given adequate representation and had their day in court. Their actual guilt or innocence does not matter.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I am very interested in your commentary, please respond to anything that interests you.