-Caveat Lector-
@ Spiked-Online
}}>Begin
Article1
May
2001
Looking the death penalty in the face
by Victor Rortvedt
I don't often find myself agreeing with a mass murderer. But I have sympathy with the
request by Timothy McVeigh, convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168
people on 19 April 1995, that his federal execution
on 16 May 2001 be nationally televised.
According to McVeigh's lawyer, his client is 'is in favour of public scrutiny of
government action - including his own execution'. Surely, if the first federal
execution since 1963 does not warrant public scrutiny, nothin
g does. And is it democratic to shield us, the American public, from this supreme
extension of the US state's power?
A Gallup poll in 2000 showed that 67 percent of US citizens support the death penalty
- a figure also employed in the popular US drama series The West Wing's episode on
this issue (1). But only a small few ever witness a
state execution, and so it would seem that Americans are denied direct confrontation
with this facet of their government. Even fictionalised depictions of executions, such
as the film Dead Man Walking, which bring the dea
th penalty to light for examination, are few and far between.
McVeigh's case is remarkable both because it is a federal execution, and therefore
representative of the USA as a whole; and because the condemned man desires to have
his death witnessed by the citizens who make up that n
ation. Without the condemned man's consent, televising an execution would be
prohibited by the 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause. This gives the American
public a singular opportunity to reassess our adherence to a pr
actice that has been recently outlawed in the European Union's Bill of Human Rights.
US attorney general John Ashcroft has allowed a closed circuit TV broadcast of the
execution to be witnessed by approximately 250 relatives of victims of the bombing
within the prison (2). In July 2000, a California distr
ict judge ruled that the news media - the public's surrogate - should be allowed into
the execution chamber for the duration of the procedure, from when the condemned
entered the chamber until the coroner pronounced death
(3).
Into these seeming cracks in the door for public witness streamed Entertainment
Network Inc, which sued for the right to webcast the execution for $1.95 per viewer,
the proceeds of which would go to charities benefiting t
he victim's families. On 18 April 2001, an Indiana district judge denied the company
the right to do so, but it will be appealing the decision.
Entertainment Network Inc's plan, however, would bring the execution only to those
with the desire to purchase the event, making it more akin to entertainment than
public understanding. If such a precedent were to be esta
blished, the death penalty would take on more of the morbid popularity that already
surrounds it, turning the issue from a matter of political debate into one of
voyeurism and bloodlust.
Even if this company has a humanitarian aim, it seems to want to bring back the public
execution, in all its macabre fascination with the suffering of others. For there to
be any merit in the broadcasting of executions, t
he presenter must work to place the viewer in a state of civic responsibility -
responsibility to their nation to witness, think over and come to a decision about the
powers of the state.
Human confrontation with death is not always characterised by morbid bloodlust.
McVeigh's death merits a lens of civic engagement - one that assesses whether a humane
society should have the power to take the life of its
deviant citizens. The important thing is for officials, broadcasters and citizens to
engage with and participate in their own governance - for if McVeigh joins the
hundreds of others executed in the USA without any meanin
gful discussion about capital punishment, how can we truly claim to support this
practice?
Over time, I hope that the USA will continue its retreat from cruel and unusual
punishments and repeal the death penalty. But for now, it was disheartening to hear
both George W Bush and Al Gore say in the presidential debates that even though
studies show the death penalty is not a deterrent to potential criminals, they both
support it as one. Because the truth lurking behind that answer is that if capital
punishment loses its preventative validity, it only exists as an ultimate tool of
state power for vengeance. And vengeful is not what progressive governments are
authorised to be.
For debate about capital punishment to languish in the journals of the far left and
far right is not indicative of an engaged populace - and nor is a 50 percent voter
turnout for the presidential election. But the ultimate power of the state is an
issue that should be firmly in the dialogue of its citizens, because it is clear
there is an abundance of opinions, and Timothy McVeigh has given us a reason and
obligation to listen once again.
Some facts about the death penalty in the USA:
-- Thirty-eight US states have reintroduced the death penalty since 1977. Nineteen
of these are considering bills to place a moratorium on executions.
-- 95 people nationwide have been exonerated from death row since 1973.
-- Illinois Republican governor George Ryan placed a moratorium on the use of the
death penalty, noting that, since its reintroduction in 1977, 13 death row inmates
in Illinois have been cleared and freed, while 12 have been executed.
-- During George W Bush's governorship of Texas, 152 people were executed.
-- As of 21 April 2001, 707 people had been executed nationwide since 1977 - giving
Texas, under Bush's governorship, 22 percent of the total executions.
-- The academic journal Crime and Delinquency in 1999 examined a decade of
executions in Texas and found 'no evidence of a deterrent effect'.
-- A 1995 poll by Hart Research Associates found that only one percent of police
chiefs believe that the death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides.
-- The only countries in the world to place minors on death row are Iran, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen�and the USA (4).
(1) Gallup poll release, 3 February 2001
(2) The state closes our eyes as it kills, Village Voice, 19 April 2001
(3) The state closes our eyes as it kills, Village Voice, 19 April 2001
(4) Death Penalty Information Center
Reprinted from :
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D08C.htm
End<{{
T' A<>E<>R
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational
tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the
State among its hapless subjects. His task is to demonstrate
repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the
"democratic" State has no clothes; that all governments subsist
by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse
of objective necessity. He strives to show that the existence of
taxation and the State necessarily sets up a class division between
the exploiting rulers and the exploited ruled. He seeks to show that
the task of the court intellectuals who have always supported the State
has ever been to weave mystification in order to induce the public to
accept State rule and that these intellectuals obtain, in return, a
share in the power and pelf extracted by the rulers from their deluded
subjects.
[[For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray N. Rothbard,
Fox & Wilkes, 1973, 1978, p. 25]]
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
