An Eye for an Eye.
The State of Utah has a long association with the Mormon Church.
Thus, along with retaining the death penalty, they have also retained an affinity to the idea of ‘blood atonement’ – that the physical spilling of blood by the convicted was part of the process by which God could forgive him – which is alleged to be the reason why they were so attracted to the idea of death by firing squad. There is a lengthy scholarly article here explaining the religious connection for those who want more information.
Yesterday Ronnie Lee Gardner became the latest man to be executed by five marksmen – one of whom has a dummy bullet – whilst strapped into a floodlit chair.
Gardener was sentenced to death for killing a lawyer and wounding a court bailiff, whilst appearing in court on yet another murder charge.
Utah legislated to remove the right to die by firing squad in 2004, but Gardner was convicted before this date, thus still retain this dubious ‘right’.
Gary Gilmore was the first person to be executed in the US after capital punishment was reinstated in 1976 – and he chose to be taken to Utah to die by firing squad.
Allegedly, the five man firing squad are all crack shots, aiming at a man who is strapped in place. However, so much for ‘an eye for an eye’ – both Mr Gilmore’s cornea were considered suitable for transplant to a donor after his death.
The marksmen are all volunteers, and are given a medal to commemorate the occasion after they have finished their duties. I find it difficult to imagine why anyone would volunteer for such a duty – as a correspondent said to me this morning – surely the next stage is a reality TV show where the winning contestant gets to shoot the next death row prisoner on live television.
There can be few amongst us who have not harboured thoughts of ‘death is too good for them’ in respect to some particular agenda of our own, whether it is animal cruelty, or child abuse, or the murder of police officers. It is an easy thing to say, and easy thought to hold.
How many of us could actually shoot dead a man strapped to a chair? –not because he had raped your daughter, or beaten your dog to death – but because the state had sanctioned his death and you had chosen to volunteer as an “assignment, nothing more than getting an order to do something like kicking in a door to serve a warrant”.
I wasn’t aware that I had any strong feelings one way or another on the death penalty, beyond a vague feeling that law and order in the UK had gone to pot since it was abandoned for murder. Having read some of the material I have linked to, I feel very disturbed.
The US brought back the death penalty over 30 years ago, it doesn’t seem to have lessened the murder rate, and I am more concerned with what is happening to the mentality of the people carrying out these sentences than I am with the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
Your thoughts? It seems a pertinent debate in the light of recent calls for more police officers to be armed.
June 19, 2010 at 09:08
-
Shove “god” where the sun don’t shine. That is all fantasy. HERE and NOW is
REAL.
-
June 19, 2010 at 09:06
-
XX as a correspondent said to me this morning
- June 19, 2010 at 08:08
-
I think that the Utah situation could be compared with execution in Japan –
where the task is assigned (supposedly at random?) to an anonymous warder at
the prison where the condemned resides. After the job’s done the warder is
immediately moved to another prison.
But according to Wikipedia 80% of Japanese support the death penalty –
although actual executions been suspended since 2009 by the current Justice
Minister.
- June 19, 2010 at 06:25
-
More importantly, what will God’s punishment be for them?
- June 19, 2010 at 01:59
-
Most people will kill quite willingly with a bit of training – I cite WW1,
WW2, Vietnam, Korea etc.
- June 19, 2010 at 01:11
-
the state kiling people in cold blood after due process is wrong – it has
no place in a civilised society. (For those in the “punishment fit the crime
camp”, lets start debating Sharia for a while..?)
BUT – and it’s a huge caveat – life for murder and other crimes (killing
cops, paedophilia etc) should mean life in prison – no remission, no parole
etc.
As soon as we say that life is 10-20 then I am straight back into the
DP camp……not withstanding my earlier concerns. All in all I am convinced the
downside risk to serious criminals is not harsh enough.
Of course, giving citizens the right to own arms in self defence may be a
help in reducing the number of bad guys taken to court…….
- June 18, 2010 at 22:30
-
Quote: Note that I did not say rather a criminal on the streets than an
innocent executed.
***
I would say rather 10 [ten] criminals in the street than one in
prison or – God forbid – executed innocent …
-
June 19, 2010 at 16:45
-
Why?
If your logic runs along the lines of ‘…it is a most awful thing to kill
an innocent man…’ then surely the 10 criminals on the street represent a far
greater evil, with the possibility of 10 innocent men dying at their hands,
than for one man to be wrongly executed.
It is AS great an evil for a murderer to get away with it and for an
innocent man to be executed.
You can never win the numbers game.
- June
18, 2010 at 22:04
-
First off I am totally against the Death Penalty.
So though I wouldn’t do any shooting, I do understand that to make the
volunteers have some doubt as to whether or not they actually shot the person
that dummy bullets are used for one or more of the guns. This is supposed to
help some of the volunteers cope with the aftermath of their task.
As to actually volunteering, you do have people volunterring to join the
army. The army’s main purpose is killing, though in reality it doesn’t do it
very much during peacetime. It probably isn’t very different to the police
officers who volunteer for the execution job. After a period of time and
through training and experiencing it day in day out people can become
desensitized to just about anything.
Now on to the actual task. I would have thought that a bullet to the head
is a lot quicker and more instant than by lethal injection which has been
shown to not be 100% effective straight away. The only reason a bullet is not
shot into the brain is that society is weird about death. Why should death by
lethal injection be any different to death by bullet? Something to do about
blood? Why connotations of the wild west? I thought Americans reveled in their
frontier history? And why should they think they have to be humane to a
criminal as he is being executed? You’re already executing the criminal
because you’re trying to be vengeful so why not go all the way and give them
painful death – they probably deserve it.
As to the reoffending rate being 0% with the DP. The reason why we
currently have reoffending is because people are released. If life did mean
life then the reoffending rate would be 0% as well. It’s because some people
seem to think that criminals are put off by prison and would never reoffend
haven been through the process. Yes, for some, but a small minority.
The majority see it as something to factor into their jobs. A bit like
racing car drivers accept that they might die, but its worth it for the fun
they have driving. The same with criminals. They accept that there is a
downside to their chosen career but they seriously believe that they are only
being unlucky if they are caught. The really serious criminal will factor in
the DP into their criminal activities. In some they might go further because
“in for a penny in for a pound”.
As to why I’m against the DP. Rather than an innocent locked up for a long
time than an innocent murdered by the state. In the former compensation can be
paid, in the later it’s too late to say sorry. Note that I did not say rather
a criminal on the streets than an innocent executed. Not having the DP should
be tied in with whole life sentences. Execution is just a pretty word for
state sanctioned murder. A bit like “collateral damage” for the deaths of
civilians during war.
Murder is murder and is wrong no matter who is doing it.
- June 19, 2010 at 14:58
-
” If life did mean life then the reoffending rate would be 0% as well.
”
Maybe we should stop allowing sentences to be served concurrently.
- June 19, 2010 at 16:41
-
Life imprisonment (whilst a dramatic improvement on the current
situation) would not (and indeed does not) stop them killing other
prisoners or warders.
-
June 19, 2010 at 16:39
-
Murder is the taking of human life WITHOUT authority. Soldiers shooting
soldiers is not murder, it is war. A person killing an armed intruder is not
murder, it is defence. An executioner killing a murderer is not murder, it
is justice.
- June 18, 2010 at 20:53
-
On the subject of the DP I am always torn. On the one hand we have the
clear fact that it is entirely just to execute someone guilty of committing a
crime (a proper crime, not one of the phoney, New Labour, ones), but on the
other hand we have the fact that it is utterly evil to kill an innocent
person. So we are trapped between giving perfect justice, and actually using
the flawed legal system that we have. Is it more evil to imprison a guilty
person for their entire lives, when they actually deserve death, or to execute
an innocent person who deserves freedom (or, at least, a full life with the
chance of release). In that sense, the argument about the cost of keeping
murderers alive for 50 years in prison becomes not a question of putting a
value on the life of the murderer, but rather putting a value on the life of
the innocent person, wrongly convicted of murder. Since we can never entirely
know the innocence or guilt of someone, can we ever justify risking killing an
innocent person?
-
June 19, 2010 at 16:36
-
We risk killing innocent people EVERY time we release convicted murderers
from prison. The ‘deal’ the public did with the State, when it abolished the
DP, was that murderers would receive a Life sentence and NEVER be released.
Since 1970, almost 150 people have been murdered by a person who had already
served a sentence for murder.
Being concerned for the lives of the innocent is a very good thing.
That’s why we should hang murderers.
- June 18, 2010 at 20:48
-
People have commented that the Death Penalty is unworthy of a civilised
society, implying that as they are against the death penalty they are
civilised while those who see a use for the DP are not, all without actually
defining what they mean by ‘civilised’.
What they actually mean is that they would rather not have the
unpleasantness of executing a proven murderer, preferring instead that other
people (sometimes children) take the risk of being the next victim. Oh, and
they want to sound superior while doing this.
Become an MP, why don’t you?
QFT – EV “One thing is certain; the re-offending rate is zero.”
- June 18, 2010 at 20:12
-
A medal, you say? I’d be curious as to what the design and inscription
contain.
-
June 18, 2010 at 19:14
-
I could cook the condemned man’s last meal … that’d be sure to finish him
off.
- June 18,
2010 at 19:12
-
“… and you had chosen to volunteer as an
- June 18, 2010 at 18:09
-
Anna… I don’t believe I could ever pull the trigger in cold blood. Heat of
the moment, yes, sure. But not after the guy has waited years, going through
the tortuous American appeals process which serves only to drag the punishment
out.
But I would like to know — what IS that thing in the picture? Try as I may,
I cannot make out what the hell it is. And now I HAVE to know!!!
- June 18, 2010 at 18:25
-
It is the chair Ronnie Lee Gardner was strapped to. It is fixed to a
wooden board which is standing on a plinth made of stone. Behind the chair
and board is probably pile of sandbags covered with black plastic
sheeting.
- June 18, 2010 at 17:47
-
It’s got nothing to do with what the criminal wants or would prefer. It is
to do with what the justice system decides.
So, someone doesn’t like being
locked up for thirty years. Tough.
And whatever happened to Hard Labour?
- June 18, 2010 at 14:39
-
Is it more civilised to lock someone up for the rest of their natural life
than dispose of them? It seems a cruel and vindictive torture to have to spend
decades incarcerated without any possibility of release. Were I found guilty
(of a crime with such a penalty), I believe I might opt for death rather than
years of confinement.
-
June 18, 2010 at 14:33
-
This is one of two themes which will never be solved to the satisfaction of
everybody…the other is Abortion.
Much depends on the society in which one
lives as far as attitudes are concerned…but there are still no answers.
- June 18, 2010 at 14:15
-
The CIA had an opening for an assassin. After all of the background checks,
interviews, and testing were done there were three finalists
- June 18, 2010 at 14:03
-
What is justice?
Is justice meant to be whatever the victim or their relatives say is
enough? I don’t think it is but our State appears to have taken on the mantle
of actively pushing against notion, handing out some laughable sentences and
causing great distress. This is not what I think the State should be doing. It
should neither accede to requests of victims/relatives nor act in opposition
to them but set a rational, reasonable middle ground.(For want of a much
better term of expression. I loathe that particular one.)
Punishment is supposed to fit the crime. If you commit a heinous crime and
fully accept the consequences, up to and including death as some of the
examples in the linked article do, are you cheating the system by cutting
short your punishment?
The slowness of the process raised by Disenfranchised of Buckingham is a
very real issue. People are being held on remand for months and months and
then when a prison sentence is handed down that time incarcerated is (imo
rightly) taken into account. The short sentences people get is sometimes due
to this lethargy and it is a lethargy that goes against the notion of justice
– people are being incarcerated for lengthy periods without being guilty or
innocent. This is sometimes for our protection and sometimes for their
protection yet that is a flimsy excuse – get the case dealt quickly and people
know where they stand. Is this a subtle gaming of the system? Our Euro-elite
live and die by their liberal credentials. Could there be a pressure to reduce
sentences on paper but not in reality by shuffling a substantial part of the
sentence onto remand time? I would hope not. It would be a gross abuse of the
justice system.
To my mind if the Police have reason to arrest someone they ought to
already have a good idea what they have done and the CPS shouldn’t have much
trouble quickly mounting a prosecution. Unfortunately the Police seem intent
on arresting people as matter of routine for almost any trivial incident and
*then* building a case. This is arse first to how (in my head at least)
Policing ought to be. Why are people spending months (on remand or not)
waiting to find out if they will be prosecuted. This is, in a very real sense,
punishment without first being found guilty. I suspect this is another gaming
of the system but by the Police – they will dangle the option of admit your
‘guilt’ straight away and pay a fine. What price in pounds and reputation do
you put on 6-12 months of stress waiting to hear if the CPS will prosecute?
What price in morals and respect have the Police put on getting easy results
and revenue?
There is likely a pressure on the CPS/HM Courts to avoid media circuses as
much as they can too, especially for cases where emotions run high. Wait a
while for some other news to fill the void before commencing a prosecution.
This could stem from trying to get a fair jury. If that is the case it is
another step towards corpus juris over habeas corpus. Encouraging the idea
that juries are unreliable due to media coverage, complicated cases and so on
becomes a reason to do away with them. Loading the blame onto juries is to
distract from poor prosecutions, poor defence arguments and judges who think
they are supposed to tell a jury what result to find.
- June
18, 2010 at 13:49
-
Surely the moment one agrees that murders have been reduced, especially
beyond the number of miscarriages of justice (very low considering the burden
of proof in Death Penalty cases), it is a moral imperative to execute the
people.
Otherwise ones personal feelings towards the action are condemning unknown
people to death.
- June 18, 2010 at 13:46
-
Mr Panda’s sloganeering is far from helpful to this debate; I can assure
him that as a Christian I am not a cretin – although there is a large and
vociferous contingency who love to air their prejudices in similar fashion in
the comments of the Daily Mail..
To the issue at hand. The one thing that
concerns me in the DP debate is that any country or state that withdraws it is
sending an unequivocal signal to criminals and victims (and their familes)
alike that it doesn’t take the crime that seriously. I realise that there’s a
gut reaction in many people when they hear of the senseless and calculated
slaughter of innocent victims. We’ve recently been exposed in the East
Midlands news to a particularly nasty incident where a Derbyshire taxi driver
was murdered by a stranger for the sheer hell of it by a man who carefully
planned for the event. Premeditated murder of a man who happened to respond to
a phone call. If the accused man’s guilt is established, a custodial sentence
will be the outcome, at the end of which he’ll be free to indulge his twisted
fantasy again – and the sentence will hardly serve as a serious deterrent. As
unpalatable as execution is – and of course it is – and many will say that
it’s unworthy of a civilised society. But how civilised is a system that
doesn’t match the gravity of the punishment with the seriousness of the
crime?
-
June 18, 2010 at 13:45
-
Perhaps the victim’s next of kin should have the option to pull the
trigger?
-
June 18, 2010 at 22:56
-
An interesting thought but no, if there is one thing you can see from
reading postings it is that
- June 18, 2010 at 22:56
-
Ooops, sorry – clicked the wrong box.
- June 18, 2010 at 13:23
-
“How many of us could actually shoot dead a man strapped to a chair?”
It would be difficult to know for sure until your actually stood there with
gun in hand. But yes, I think I would be quite happy to do that.
I would need to know enough about the case to be happy that the rest of us
would be better off without him. But assuming that, yes.
- June 18, 2010 at 17:37
-
“…without him…” Or her.
I see there’s a TV documentary series with the title “Lady
Killers”.
This isn’t about people who kill ladies. It’s about women who
are killers.
Imagine a programme about Peter Sutcliffe, etc with the
title “Gentlemen Killers”.
- June 18, 2010 at 12:34
-
Sorry, Freudian slip there
Mormons are only one letter short of being imbeciles
- June 18, 2010 at 12:31
-
Morons are only one letter of the alphabet short of being imbeciles.
Chr
- June 18, 2010 at 12:20
-
I have no problem with the death penalty in principle. Which is worse being
executed or serving life? I mean till you’re dead, not 5 to 10 years that it
seems to mean.
One issue that concerns me is the quality of the justice system. A chap in
Northants has just received an apology for being locked up for over 3 years
having been wrongly accused of rape.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/10343403.stm
Did
the woman who lied serve 3 years 4 months? Did the coppers who failed to pass
on information serve 3 years 4 months? What about Met Police officers who
don’t wear numbers and beat up demonstrators or passers by?
And the courts. How the hell can trials take so long? If you can’t prove
someone guilty in a day then to my mind there has to be reasonable doubt
because the evidence clearly isn’t good enough. Long trials will lead to
injustice.
With those reservations I agree with EV, dead men don’t re-offend. Any one
who lets out a murderer who re-offends is to my mind guilty of man
slaughter.
- June 18, 2010 at 13:30
-
“A chap in Northants has just received an apology for being locked up for
over 3 years having been wrongly accused of rape.”
This is precisely the reason I feel so uncomfortable with Harpy
Harperson, and her quest to make the allegation of rape a de facto
conviction. Of course rape is a vile crime, but it
- June 18, 2010 at 17:31
-
A Labour peer named the woman, but I see that her name isn’t being made
known in the media.
What’s your view on this case then Harman? You
ignorant hypocrite.
I hope the next time you or Flint (or whichever
blinkered Labour MP) raises the issue in the Commons that Cameron (or
relevant Minister) screams this case at the top of their lungs at you.
Stupid, ignorant Labour, it isn’t about rights, it’s about control.
- June 18, 2010 at 12:12
-
anna- you live in a beautiful part of france-
away from most of the
loonies?
out in the real world there are milions of nutters/criminals/self-appointed
judge and jury types who would enjoy killing someone……many would probably even
pay for the privilege!
have a look at the video of americans shooting civilians and children in
iraq and screaming and cheering as if they are playing a computer game……
- June 18, 2010 at 17:21
-
“…screaming and cheering as if they are playing a computer game…”
Which, quite possibly, is what they think they’re actually doing.
-
June 18, 2010 at 12:12
-
It’s a good question. With the likes of Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting
festering away in some cell at the tax payer expense you do have to ask
yourself whether these people would be missed if we just got shot of them.
Question is, could I personally pull the trigger, flip the switch to
execute someone. No, I don’t believe I could.
-
June 18, 2010 at 12:03
-
I guess the reason that people will volunteer is because if one believes in
the death penalty then the usual taunt from ‘anti’ campaigners is ‘well, would
you pull the trigger? Looks like there some people who really believe what
they say and are prepared to match their words with their deeds.
PS Check the stats on the deterrent effect. When DP was abolished in
America the violent crime/murder rate went up. In the individual States where
it was reintroduced, it is now lower than before the ban, when assessed per
capita (the population is bigger now, hence more crime, but not per head). It
is also higher in the states where the DP remains banned.
One thing is certain; the re-offending rate is zero.
- June 18, 2010 at 11:43
-
Depends what type of volunteering it is.
There’s ‘I volunteer’ and there’s ‘You’re volunteering’.
Marksmen are very rarely left to make their own decision on whether to
fire, they get the target in their sights and a superior says fire. lf l was a
superior officer and had to have volunteers l’d do it the ‘You’re
volunteering’ way. The rights and wrongs and indeed the moral implications
would then be on me … and not my men.
- June 18, 2010 at 11:33
-
I decided when I was about sixteen that The Death Penalty is an
abomination.
I have never changed my mind. And my feelings have little to
do with the very real possibility of innocent people being executed. The Death
penalty is simply judicial murder. It has no place in a civilised society.
{ 43 comments }