As Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall stated, “The endorsement [of capital punishment] was premised on the promise that [it] would be administered with fairness and justice, [but instead], the promise has become a cruel and empty mockery.” The debate over how humane the death penalty is has gained the interest of the media and has caused the various aspects of capital punishment such as the methods employed for the execution of criminals to be questioned. As I proposed in my previous blog, I feel as if the most humane method employed in the execution of the death penalty is lethal injection. In considering this proposition, what does the future hold for the death penalty?
Since eliminating the death penalty from the US justice system is nearly impossible solution to the debate over the constitutionality of the methods employed in executions, the alternative is to administer capital punishment in as humane a method as possible. The US is already moving toward making this a reality. Today, nearly 81 percent of all executions performed make use of lethal injection as opposed to other less humane methods of execution. In fact, 375 out of the last 378 executions performed were by lethal injection. There has been a decline in the application of the alternative methods of execution that I had described in my last blog. For instance, only 14.7 percent of executions now make use of electrocution, while even fewer, 1.1 percent, use lethal gas as a means of execution. If this trend continues, lethal injection will completely replace other "cruel and unusual" methods of execution.
Even if lethal injection becomes the only method used in capital punishment, the debate over the humaneness of it will continue. Though some people believe that lethal injection is completely humane and painless, others will continue to argue their stance that even lethal injection contradicts the constitutional protection provided to US citizens by the eighth amendment. I support the fact that lethal injection may not be completely painless, but no method of taking someone’s life will be completely painless. If we accept death as a means of retribution in our justice system, we must also accept that, inherent in it, is the idea that we must cause the person some pain. In my view, taking a person’s life is never humane, but what alternative do we have?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I agree. I don't think the death penalty is suitable under any circumstances, regardless of pain factor. I think it's wrong. In that same retrospect, I think that the death penalty can never be abolished because of how controversial a debate it is. The lethal injection, in my opinion, may not be physical pain, but it is still the act of taking someone's life and I agree that there is always pain in the taking of life.
I completely agree that lethal injection is the most humane method of the death penalty. There will always be a debate on whether the death penalty should be administered, but if it is in use, I think people should at least be happy that we've progressed this far. Society needs to realize how much the methods have changed and be thankful that the methods used in the past are no longer considered. People need to get over the issue and realize it's better than any other alternative. The only fair thing is for justice to occur, and this is the best way for that to happen.
I agree with kelly, lethal injection should be the only kind of capital punishment used in this country. While I feel don't understand how you can teach people not to kill by killing people, I do understand that there are some people that have life sentences already and even the worst criminals value their own life. My question is, how can we think of our society as being civilized if we still see fit, "an eye for an eye." is justice better served?
What values underly the argument that lethal injection is inhumane? I think your ideas are expressed clearly, but maybe explain more the underlying values and ideas which determine humane verse inhumane.
1.adherence of the constitutional clause of protection against “cruel and unusual punishment,” ...what does this mean in the constitution. You said we couldn't get rid of the death penalty because of this, but I feel like what it is saying means we SHOULD get rid of it.
2.You barely touched on the other side of the death penalty. I thought it was a great point but it was just too short. Almost like an unfinished thought.
*Overall good good post!! You kept the flow great. I followed it really well. There was just some discrepancies here and there. One thing I found just a bit strange was in the beginning you talk about how you think lethal injection is the most humane way to take someone's life, and in the end you say that you believe taking someone's life is never humane. But good job!!! I really liked your evidence as well!
you did a really good job of writing about current trends what the future holds for the death penalty. I agree with kelly in that you need to define what is and is not humane. You kind of just begin with the idea of humaneness and run with it. Otherwise this is really good because you provide examples and focus solely on the implications of how the death penalty is administered. As far as grammar goes, you repeat "pain" and "painless" often in the last paragraph. Word variation would help to make your post more clear and descriptive.
I like the way you have laid out the historical progress that America has seen in regards to the issue of the death penalty. As well as acknowledged that it is almost impossible to take away the death penalty, yet highlighting the many contradictions it holds.
I was thinking that even though people use lethal injection nowadays, why can't people put prisoners to sleep first with general anesthesia first before using the injection. Isn't this so much more 'painless'. But i think this would still not solve the problem as people would still continue to question the 'emotional pain' to family members and such. Hence, I really like the way you end off with a broad question, because i think this issue is really a broad issue and will not be easily answered. To improve this post, perhaps you might want to show how the definition of 'humane' has changed through time, and then use it to predict how it is going to change still and its implications in the future. Just a thought! Great job..
Post a Comment