etee's Blog

Once again, the death penalty has gotten some time in the national spotlight, after what appears to be a botched execution in Florida. California has now joined Florida in declaring a moratorium on executions (although in the case of California it is the result of a judge declaring the method of execution to be unconstitutional.)

And, blogger Polimom has written a piece on the subject over at The Moderate Voice. While a lot of what she said makes sense (as is often the case), I am not sure she actually went far enough, as I pointed out in this comment:

I think that, ultimately, the debate must not be solely around capital punishment - or the racial aspects of the application of the criminal justice system. I think we need to rethink our whole system of assessing and implementing punishment. "Cruel and unusual" was, in the days the Constitution was written, a reference to things like drawing and quartering, disembowelment, boiling in oil, and other such 'niceties'. I doubt that the Founders meant it to apply to capital punishment per se, yet as we progress(?) as a society the death penalty seems more and more cruel.

I also agree - how do you define in acceptable legal terms just what crime(s) meet the definition for 'extremely heinous' and therefore merit the death penalty - and how do you ensure that zealous prosecutors won't try and twist every case they have to make it fit that criteria? And, how do you keep certain elements of society from expanding the category? For example, there are some who now advocate that any child sex offender should be put to death - automatically. Great, but how about the parent who takes the "photo of baby on the bear skin rug", which gets turned over to the DA by the photo lab assistant, who convinces a jury that this somehow is a 'sex crime' involving a child? Do mommy and daddy now face the needle? Common sense says "no way", but the law isn't about common sense - it is about interpreting and applying written rules governing conduct.

However, to get back to my point - I think our whole system of punishment is screwy. Jeffy Skilling, for example, stole several millions from folks. For that, he will spend the next 24 years or so in a converted college dorm. Sure, he will not have his 'freedom', but what exactly is the punishment here? The risk that he may be sexually assaulted by a fellow inmate? The likelihood of abusive treatment (verbal, mental, and/or physical) from fellow inmates or staff? The fact that he is "in a cage" (which is not really true), and is in fact something we consider cruel treatment when applied to animals?

I think we need to look at what damage the criminal act did to society, and what needs to be done to fix things - to make it right. In many cases, the criminal should be performing service for the community - in additon to holding down a job and paying restitution (think of how long Jeffy would have to work to pay back the MILLION$ he stole as head of Enron.) In some cases, where the person presents an ongoing physical danger to society, then isolating / quarantining this person from society is the reasonable answer. Such a quarantine may take the form of incarceration, or (in extreme cases) even elimination (execution), just as we 'execute' dangerous animals (such as pit bulls who attack folks.)