Oct. 23
USA:
Capital punishment isn't a solution for prisoners
Capital punishment is a widely debated means to end the life of a convicted
individual after they have been incarcerated for crimes perceived as too
heinous for them to re-enter society. Historically, capital punishment has been
the subject of controversy in its legality, ethicality and necessity in
society.
Execution styles have changed over time, transitioning between the electric
chair and death by firing squad to the most common method used today, which is
lethal injection. This method by some is considered to be the most humane, as
sedatives are frequently used to ease any physical or emotional stress. In
spite of this, there are mounting issues with lethal injection in monetary,
ethical and moral areas.
There is no denying that incarceration, especially for extended periods of
time, is costly. When people receive life sentences, they still need to be fed,
clothed and housed for multiple years. These expenses leave some to think that
the death sentence is a more frugal way of handling punishment for serious
crimes. What isn't frequently considered, however, is the price of execution.
Very often, when an execution sentence is being considered, the accused will
have several court-ordained hearings in their defense. Each of these requires
the services of a lawyer, and as most people know, those don't come cheap. The
total court costs of a death penalty trial in Kansas is $400,000, which is
extremely expensive when compared to $100,000 in trials not considering the
death penalty. In other states, one death penalty case was priced at more than
$3 million.
Besides this, there is the additional cost of the chemicals used for the
execution. The compounds used are not available in the United States, which I
speculate is either because they're simply not available here or because
marketplaces do not want their product associated with execution.
While some may argue one simple solution would be to just use the same drugs
already used in physician-assisted suicide, I believe this would create a
negative connotation around the same drugs used to put loved ones out of
suffering. This is why morphine and other narcotics are not used as sedatives
already in the lethal injection process. In the same way that the morphine
industry doesn't want to be associated with the death of criminals, any
supplier of drugs used in end-of-life care would be hesitant to sell their
product to aid the death penalty.
With no other option, prisons must import the materials used in lethal
injections. The Food and Drug Administration has strict regulations on
importing chemicals into the country from oversea sources, so many states are
running out of their supplies. This has led some prisons, notably Ohio and
Texas, to execute prisoners with new experimental cocktails of lethal injection
substitutes.
Currently, many states have to delay their executions because they do not have
one or more of the components used for the injection. This creates a variety of
issues. Texas, for instance, is not experiencing a shortage but has not
disclosed how much of the drugs they have or from where they bought them. Other
states like Ohio have had to extend their inmates??? sentences and execution
dates while they look for a new source of lethal injection chemicals.
Not only is it more expensive than one would expect, but the death penalty is
ultimately a flawed system. In the case of interracial murder, a black suspect
with a white victim is 3 times more likely to receive a death sentence than the
reverse.
While this is an issue more with the judiciary system and less with the death
penalty itself, the cringeworthy methods used to execute criminals in the past
have raised questions concerning both ethics and the infringement of
Constitutional rights.
Lethal injection may not be painless, either. Despite claims of it being
completely humane, there have been several instances where the person on the
table has been observed to be in obvious agony, from eye twitching to extended
periods of muscle spasms. In an infamous case in January 2014, an incarcerated
man took 26 minutes to die and was observed experiencing severe suffering by
several people.
Much of this is due to the fact that no medical doctors, nurses or emergency
medical technicians are permitted to administer the injection or even be
present due to the Hippocratic Oath, in which medical professionals swear to do
everything in their power not to inflict harm on a healthy individual. This
leads to under-experienced technicians or completely unexperienced jail staff
having to hook up IVs and deliver the drugs, which can easily be done
improperly in ways able to cause pain. The drugs used in lethal injections have
never been certified as a painless and effective method of execution and were
simply picked at random to be the procedure of choice.
I do not believe we can instill any societal belief that it is wrong to commit
atrocious crimes against other people if our correctional facilities have the
power to do the same to us. There is no debate that victims and their families
want some form of closure or retribution for the wrongs committed to them by an
individual, but capital punishment is arguably not the best way to go about
receiving retribution.
Regardless, due to the difficulty in obtaining the required drugs, Ohio is one
of the states considering bringing back death by firing squad. At a time where
there is already so much animosity toward police felt among the common people,
I don't think we need to throw in the issue of the correctional facility
shooting adult citizens to death. Murder is still murder, and capital
punishment does not deter citizens from thinking otherwise.
As prisons continue to fill over capacity, a new means of handling the
punishment of heinous crimes is one of the many problems urgently needing
addressed and solved in correctional departments across the country.
(source: Commentary; Shelby Bradford, The Daily Athenaeum)
****************
Time to abolish the death penalty
With the 2 Supreme Court decisions concerning the national approval of gay
marriage and the affirmation of the Affordable Care Act, the United States has
moved two steps closer to becoming a more humane and equitable society. These
decisions had less to do with the intricacies of the law or the wording of the
Constitution than the fact that they reflected changes in public attitudes that
the court could not ignore.
It is time to take the next step. It is time for the public to rise up and
challenge the application of the death penalty in those states where it still
exists and with the federal government.
The death penalty is both inhumane and inequitable. Across the United Sates the
death penalty is applied differently, often depending on race, economic
circumstance and geography. If an offender is poor, a member of a minority
group or living in Texas or Louisiana that person is far more likely to face a
death penalty than if they are wealthy, white and live in Colorado or
Pennsylvania where, according to an article in USA Today, the governors of
these states have declared a moratorium on the death penalty. And, there are
scores of cases where, for a variety of reasons, innocent people have been
sentenced to death.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet declared the death penalty as "cruel
and unusual punishment" no one defends it as being humane.
Public opinion does not yet fully support abolishing the death penalty but
opposition to it seems to be growing, at least in certain parts of the country.
According to the same USA Today article, the total number of executions dropped
from 98 in 1999 to 31 in 2014, and in the last 2 years only 7 states executed
anybody.
Although when horrific crimes like the Boston Marathon bombing or the shootings
in Arizona, Sandy Hook or Charleston occur, there is temporary hue and cry that
the perpetrators should be executed, large numbers of Americans are, most of
the time, ambivalent about it. And as is evidenced in the 19 states (including
the Washington, D.C.) that have abolished it there have been virtually no
political consequences for supporting the elimination of the death penalty.
The federal government, for its part, has not executed anyone for over a
decade. Congress should take the lead in abolishing the death penalty for
federal crimes. If Congress acts, more states are likely to follow suit.
It is well established that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to
people who are rapists, prone to commit murder or engage in terrorist
activities. States that have abolished the death penalty have about the same
level of serious crime as states that continue to execute people.
The only real argument in support of the death penalty is that it gives the
victims and their families a feeling of retribution and revenge. Perhaps this
is true in some cases but the death penalty is an act of violence sanctioned by
the government and like the saga of the Hatfields and McCoys it just as likely
to increase the level of violence down the road as it is to bring a measure of
satisfaction to the families of victims.
The death penalty has no place in a truly civilized society.
(source: Viewpoint; William P. Hojnacki is professor emeritus of Public and
Environmental Affairs at Indiana University South Bend. He lives in South
Bend----South Bend tribune)
******************
Death is not Productive!
One of the most important principals in political science is the state's
monopoly on legitimate use of violence. State actions and policies use the
deployment or the implied threat of force as an organic feature of state power.
This preserves the existing status quo and encourages certain behavioral
patterns while preventing or punishing others. In certain cases in the US, the
state uses the most extreme form of violence: the death penalty. There is a
large controversy over capital punishment and whether it is successful in terms
of deterrence, morality, and finance. As I see it, jury misunderstanding and
erroneous instruction cast considerable doubt on the institutional, procedural,
and economic efficacy of capital punishment.
Today, the US remains the only Western nation that maintains a federally
sanctioned death penalty. It is 1 of 5 countries (including China, Iran,
Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia) that carry out 88% of all known executions
worldwide. The rest of the world continues to move toward abolition of the
death penalty; over the past 3 decades, 3 countries a year have eradicated use
of the death penalty in all circumstances.
We must question the legitimacy of American states to exercise punishment
through the death penalty. Ben Franklin emphasized the fact that "he who would
trade liberty for some temporary security deserves neither liberty nor
security."
The fine line between the state's responsibility to guarantee the wellbeing of
its people and its power to monopolize violence is often violated and deprives
citizens of their liberty. The death penalty system in the US is often applied
in an unfair and unjust manner. It is largely dependent on economic standing,
the skill of attorneys, and the racial background of the defendant.
The death penalty is executed in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion, but
the arguments against it do not end there. Debates over capital punishment have
focused primarily on its moral and practical policy attributes. A more basic
question is whether capital punishment is constitutionally permissible in this
country.
The American Civil Liberties Union advocates that the death penalty violates
the constitutional ban against "cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantees
of due process of law and of equal protection under the law," as reflected in
the Eighth Amendment. In other words, the death penalty is an undeniable
infringement of civil liberties, and is inconsistent with the fundamental
values of a system that presents itself as a liberal democracy.
The criminal justice system is built upon a few important principles, one of
which is that it ensures citizens' security by enforcing laws and regulations.
According to the National Institute of Justice, deterrence is the principal
under which "criminal laws are passed with well-defined punishments to
discourage individual criminal defendants from becoming repeat offenders and to
discourage others in society from engaging in similar criminal activity." It is
a key concept in the judicial system. However, the level of deterrence depends
not only on a punishment's severity, but also on its certainty and frequency.
The argument most often cited in support of capital punishment is that the
threat of execution influences criminal behavior more effectively than
imprisonment. George W. Bush stated in a 2000 presidential debate, "I think the
reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives
....it's the only reason to be for it."
As reasonable as the above claim may seem, in reality, the death penalty fails
as a deterrent method. The National Research Council states that the claim that
capital punishment affects murder rates is "fundamentally flawed" because it
does not consider the effects of non-capital punishment and uses "incomplete or
implausible models." Additional studies suggest that the death penalty may
cause opposite results by actually increasing murder rates. In light of this
evidence, is it wise to spend millions on a process with no demonstrated value
that creates a risk of executing innocent people when other proven
crime-fighting measures exist?
It is far from a national trend, but some legislators have begun to express
second thoughts about the high financial cost of death row. Using conservative
rough projections, California's Commission on the Fair Administration of
Justice estimated in July 2008 that the annual costs of the existing death
penalty system ($137 million per year), the costs of the existing system after
an implementation of reforms concerning its methods ($232.7 million per year),
and the costs of a system which would impose a maximum penalty of lifetime
imprisonment instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million) are significantly
different.
It is interesting to see that the greatest costs associated with the death
penalty occur prior to and during the trial procedure, and are not influenced
by the post-conviction methods. Even if all post-conviction procedures were
abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative
sentences. Resources spent on death row could be diverted to improving the
living conditions of prison inmates, and to supporting public defenders and
legal service agencies. Lawmakers and law enforcement officials who see the
death penalty as a pragmatic issue have declared capital punishment a low
priority, promoting bills to abolish it.
The concept of violence is highly linked to the state's policymaking power. By
utilizing the death penalty, nations like the US manifest their "legitimate
right" to monopolize the use of force against the citizens. This method is not
only unconstitutional and barbaric, but it is also proven to be ineffective in
decreasing criminal activity. Even in economic terms, the death penalty is
injurious for the state. Thus, it must be abolished.
(source: Frini Chantzi, skidmorenews.com)
*************
Lethal Drug from Rogue Supplier ---- A BuzzFeed investigation tracked down
multiple illegal sales of thousands of vials of the outdated anesthetic.
4 U.S. states, and likely a 5th, have illegally purchased lethal drugs from a
man based in India, despite both the death penalty drug and the supplier
lacking approval from the Food and Drug Administration, according to an
extensive BuzzFeed investigation.
The drug, sodium thiopental, is an anesthetic that is no longer produced in the
U.S. and largely seen as an outdated method of execution. Still, Nebraska,
South Dakota, Idaho and Ohio went around FDA restrictions on drug imports and
ordered over US$50,000 worth of the drug. Investigations into the purchases
caused enough delays for the drugs to expire.
According to the report, Chris Harris, the supplier, first sold the drugs from
the Mumbai-based Kayem Pharmaceuticals, where he was a broker. From there the
drug went to the Swiss-based pharmaceutical company Naari, which pretended to
ship them to Africa. Harris then sold the drugs to his own company, Harris
Pharm, which was registered in both Salt Lake City, Utah, and Salt Lake City,
Kolkata - in India. He denied repeated requests for comment by Buzzfeed, but
multiple emails confirm that he secured "minimum orders" of increasing amounts
from correctional facilities.
The most high-profile case involves Nebraska Governor Pete Rickett, who placed
3 separate orders for thousands of vials of the drugs despite having just 10
men on death row. Until May, when the Nebraska state legislature overrode
Rickett's veto to abolish the death penalty, sodium thiopental was the only
drug allowed for execution. When the drug was no longer manufactured in the
U.S., Rickett turned to Harris, even though the Rickett's Correctional Facility
did not have a license to import the drug.
Probes by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and lawsuits filed by
lawyers of death row inmates ultimately prevented the drugs from being used.
Despite the controversy, Harris's reputation has remained somewhat intact: at
least 2 U.S. companies, Caligor Rx and Priority Pharmaceuticals, have expressed
interest in working with him.
(source: telesurtv.net)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
