NOT FOR SENSITIVE READERS

or: The Grossout Factor vs. Humane Execution

I'm opposed to the death penalty. For a more complete explanation of why, you may want to look at Rabbi Joshua Waxman's discussion of the ignominious death of Saddam Hussein at: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/virtualtalmud/

But the recent execution of Barzan al-Tikriti (Saddam's half-brother and henchman) draws our attention in the wrong direction for a reasoned examination of capital punishment. The adjustment of the rope in his case resulted in, not merely strangulation and a broken neck, but in outright decapitation. Surprisingly, this is neither novel nor unknown in the literature on the subject. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging for probably a lot more information than you really want. It is, essentially, an engineering blunder.

Why is everybody so perturbed about it? Why, for that matter, are we so perturbed about use of decapitation in the murder of various hostages and captives by Iraqui and Afghan insurgents?

It's not because decapitation is more painful and less "humane" than other methods of execution. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Depends on how it's done. If it's done right--which was the whole point of the invention of the guillotine--it is as close to painless as an execution can get. Our search since that invention for more "humane" methods has resulted only in one gross and inhumane fiasco after another, from the horrors of the electric chair (look it up in Wikipedia) to, most recently the discovery that lethal injection, if not done right, is horrendously painful.

But deep down, we aren't as interested in sparing the victim from pain as we are in protecting the spectators from being grossed out. Decapitation, no matter how painlessly done, is gross. Lethal injection, if the paralytic agent is properly administered, is relatively easy to watch, no matter how much the victim may be silently and motionlessly suffering. Similarly, even when the indignities of being hanged, drawn and quartered were mostly performed post mortem, as they were in the latter days of the use of that punishment, people responded to that procedure as "inhumane." At the time, of course, grossing out the general public was the whole point of doing it. It was intended to be the ultimate in deterrent punishment.

Which brings us back to our original point--capital punishment is intended to affect both the victim and the general public. We need to make separate decisions on how we want it to affect each one. A punishment can, like the guillotine, be relatively "humane" toward the victim and totally gross out the general public. Or it can be ferociously vengeful toward the victim, like lethal injection when bungled, and relatively easy for the general public to observe. History is, of course, replete with methods that are cruel and repulsive in equal measure.

If we really wanted, we could no doubt invent methods equally "humane" for the victim and visually acceptable for the general public. I'm not sure we want to. A general public that allows trailers for Texas Chainsaw Massacre to be shown during prime time has a lot more tolerance for grossout than our Victorian forebears. Did Barzan al-Tikriti suffer unduly at his death? Obviously, we'll never know for sure, but we can be quite sure his suffering, such as it was, was brief. Possibly too brief, in the eyes of some of his victims. But let's at least try to look at this question in the light of the two sides before us. Let's not confuse our own delicacy of taste with a concern for the suffering of the victim.

BUSH'S SURGIN' GENERALS

I can still remember when it was called escalation. Well, now it's a surge--just one more disaster, like the Katrina floods, or the South Asian tsunami. Twenty thousand more of our soldiers thrown at an enemy that, like a hydra, grows more heads as we chop them off, or like the Tar Baby, binds our hands tighter the harder we strike. Our Glorious Leader seems equally unclear about where these soldiers are to go, and where they are to come from. "We'll just kind of weasel their enlistments around the edges," the experts tell us. "Deploy them to Iraq a little earlier and keep them there a little longer." And, no doubt, call them back a little more often, like the poor guy who was called back for deployment after three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and told the brass not to wait up for him. Eventually they backed down. Are they planning on trying it again?

The alternative--some would say the unavoidable alternative--is a draft. As the war becomes less popular, recruiting becomes more difficult. There is a limit to the lies they can tell and the tricks they can pull on reluctant recruits (one young woman I spoke to said she called her recruiter to tell him she was not going to report for active duty. The recruiter asked her to come in and talk to him. The next thing she knew, she was on the plane headed for Boot Camp. She is now in the process of being discharged for depression.) So why bother with the illusion of voluntariness? Let's stick to drafting teenagers, instead of deploying middle-aged reservists. Physically, they're probably in better shape, and mentally they're a lot better at shutting up and doing what they're told.

A conscript army would not only be younger, but would include a lot more ethnic minorities, including the children of immigrants. It would also be fatter, and probably less educated than the army we have now. Fewer of its members would be aiming for college. Fewer of its members would be motivated by the desire to serve and to "give back." Most of them would probably view military service as just an extension of high school, and would try to get through it the same way.

Are the American people ready for another draft? Did the Vietnam experience turn us off so completely that we can never again accept it? The generation that dealt with the Vietnam-era draft are the parents and even the grandparents of today's potential draftees. Are we prepared to remind the country of what it was like?

Well, for further information, take a look at an earlier posting here, called "Backdraft." Those of us who were there owe our children and grandchildren an accurate picture of the part of our past that may lie in their future. In the immortal words of Nancy Reagan, just say no.