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.
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.
posted by WiredSisters at 9:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home