Tags: bullet, cervical collar, Charles Lane, Clayton Lockett, death penalty, Editors of the Washington Post, ethical, Eugene Robinson, executed, execution, Fairness, humane, Joseph R. Wood III, lethal injection, moral, neck brace
Execution by lethal chemical cocktails has recently become more difficult. Some of the makers of the required chemicals refuse to sell them for that purpose. The remaining makers desire anonymity, to avoid becoming the target of protests. Worse, some of the recent chemical executions have been botched, and seem to have produced drawn-out painful deaths.
All of these problems could be eliminated by returning to an older technique: death by bullet.
But the shooting should not be performed by a firing squad. Too many things can go wrong with a firing squad.
Instead, use a device that softly but firmly holds fixed the head and chest of the condemned. A commercially available cervical collar might be one part of the device. The condemned should be lying horizontally, face up, unable to move, on a special table having a soft surface.
The execution would be carried out by one or more gunshots from behind the head.
The gun could be fired by either a person or a computer. Computer-controlled firing would be less subject to mistakes. Sensors viewing the vicinity of the condemned could provide signals to the the computer so that the gun could fire only when no other person was in the line of fire.
Note: The general design described above is hereby released into the public domain by thepoliblog.WordPress.com. It is not patentable.
That covers the how. What about the why?
As long as the death penalty is imposed fairly, its morality is clear. We kill mad dogs, attacking wild animals, and armed enemy soldiers. We kill terrorists. We kill madmen and criminals who try to kill the police, and madmen who attack the public. We kill cancers. No matter how morally advanced we become, we will always regard such killing as justified.
But can the death penalty be imposed fairly?
Some claim that the death penalty can never be imposed fairly on an individual who is now under our control. Why not treat such a person as a prisoner of war? Why not restrain them instead of killing them? Why not try to rehabilitate them? These are difficult questions which I hope to address in a later posting. But for the present, recall that we do not use these alternatives for mad dogs. Recall that the intrinsic dignity of human beings may be a too-sweeping and vaguely founded concept, and likewise for the concept of free will. And recall that many innocents have been killed by seemingly reformed but unreformed parolees: different person’s brains are wired differently.
On these matters I have to agree with Charles Lane, and have to disagree with Eugene Robinson, who is usually one of the most insightful analyzers of public issues, and with the Editors of the Washington Post.
If you wish to comment on this post but do not see a box where you can submit a comment, that is because the mechanism for commenting is not available on any page that contains multiple postings. Comment boxes are available only on pages for single blog posts. So click here, scroll to the bottom of the post, and submit your comment.
Tags: 9-11, al-Awlaki, citizenship, death penalty, jihad, legality, religious coercion, terrorism, terrorist, traitor, treason
On September 30, 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a Hellfire missile fired by the US government, even though al-Awlaki was nominally a U.S. citizen at the time. (See here.)
Absurdly, the legality of this act is controversial in the most idealogically blinkered circles.
Think back to the Civil War in the U.S. If it was legal for Union soldiers to shoot Confederate soldiers during the Civil War, then it was legal for the US Government to kill al-Awlaki.
Wikipedia states that ‘The “targeted killing” of an American citizen was unprecedented.’ It is impossible to believe that during the Civil War soldiers were not particularly enouraged to kill named generals and high-ranking officers. So there are actually many precedents.
Killing al-Awlaki was prudent and just, as well as legal.
Tags: al-Assad, Assad, biological warfare, British Parliament, chemical warfare, civilians, Geneva Convention, non-combattants, nuclear terrorism, Syria, terrorism, torture, treatment of captured soldiers
If we do not physically punish the al-Assad regime for its use of chemical weapons:
=> All treaties on the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, on the use of torture, on terrorism, on the treatment of civilians, and on the treatment of captured enemy soldiers, become meaningless.
=> The U.S. and others should immediately begin stockpiling chemical and biological weapons, and radioactive contaminants, and methods for delivering them, because others will do so.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. We must physically punish the al-Assad regime.
As for the vote in the British Parliament, those who voted against action have learned nothing from Chamberlain’s mistake in Munich.
If you wish to comment on this post but do not see a box where you can submit a comment, that is because WordPress includes the mechanism for commenting only on the page for the individual posting, never on the page that shows all of the recent postings. So click here, scroll to the bottom of the post, and submit your comment.
Tags: Angel dust, crack cocaine, drug seller, drug-fueled crime, Julio Blanco Garcia, Justin Jouvenal, killing, murder, PCP, stabbing, Vanessa Pham, Washington Post
Yet another innocent was horrifically murdered by someone under the influence of PCP.
In this particular case, we have an unusual amount of detail about what was going through the murderer’s mind at the time. He has admitted guilt, and has told us. (See Justin Juvanal’s article in the Washington Post.)
But he apparently hasn’t been asked one of the most important questions in situations like these: Where did the killer get the drugs? Who sold them to him?
Given the killer’s present state of remorse, he would probably answer truthfully.
If we knew who sold him the drugs, the drug seller could be be taken out of circulation.
Surely the drug seller should be charged as an accessory to the crime. The drug seller was a knowing enabler. In this case and in so many like it, if the killer had not been able to obtain PCP or crack cocaine, the killing would not have occurred.
In all such cases, the murderer’s willingness to identify the seller should play a huge role when sentencing the murderer.
Tags: George Zimmerman, manslaughter, Trayvon Martin, vigilantism
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
This is a follow-up of a previous blog posting on George Zimmerman’s fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.
In my opinion, George Zimmerman is guilty of the exultant manslaughter of an opportunistically chosen victim.
Let me explain what exultant manslaughter is.
Like many of us, George Zimmerman’s personality includes a streak of vigilantism. (The popularity of the YouTube video of a vigilante bus driver in Russia confirms that the vigilante urge is widespread.)
George Zimmerman was – probably only semi-conciously – looking for an opportunity that would provide a rationalization, an excuse, a cover, that would permit him to experience the thrill of power and accomplishment and of virtue from having blown away a bad person. Any instance of the types of persons we all hate would do: the types of persons who cause us to gnash our teeth in frustration when we learn of their acts.
He had no particular person in mind. The person was to be selected by fate. George Zimmerman prowled the streets in his vehicle at night, because the history of nightime property crimes in his neighborhood favored stumbling upon a malefactor that way.
That is what is meant by exultant manslaughter.
I know this because of something in my own history. When I was a graduate student I would work on my thesis until late at night, and then walk home through the empty and mostly dark campus. One day there was news that over several nights lone students had been beaten up by a small roving band of rogue students. Instead of changing my schedule, I went to a store that sold outdoor gear, and bought a blackened commando knife in a sheath. Each night I strapped it on before leaving the office. I walked home with my hand on the knife’s handle, scanning for lurking threats, and thinking of the satisfaction there would be in sinking the blade into astonished attackers. Stupid but lucky, I never had the occasion to experience what the consequences would have been.
Tags: blaming the victim, Frontline, gang rape, gender bias, Habiba Nosheen, Hilke Schellmann, human rights, Kainat Soomro, Outlawed in Pakistan, Pakistan, PBS, rape, village elders
When a 13 year old girl was gang raped in a village in Pakistan, she filed charges against her attackers. That violated tribal tradition. The village elders sentenced her to death for bringing disgrace to the village.
(I learned all this from a fine article by Michele Langevine Leiby in the Washington Post.)
The village elders need to understand that it is they, the elders, who disgraced their village. They did so in three ways:
– they failed to punish the rapists
– they failed to comfort and heal the innocent victim
– by those two errors, they failed to protect the village’s children.
The girl is Kainat Soomro. She is still alive, protected by the police, and she is still seeking justice.
Michele Langevine Leiby’s article notes that Soomro’s story, and that of her rapists, is the subject of a documentary film, Outlawed in Pakistan, by Habiba Nosheen and Hilke Schellmann, and that an expanded version of the film will be shown on TV this spring, in PBS’ Frontline series.
Tags: Geoge Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin
Here are questions that George Zimmerman must be asked, so that we can get a clear picture of what led to his killing of Trayvon Martin on the evening of February 26, 2012.
George Zimmerman got out of his truck because Trayvon Martin, alarmed by the truck that was stalking him, began to run. Why didn’t George Zimmerman get back into his truck after the police dispatcher, having been informed of that, told him “We don’t need you to do that.”?
If George Zimmerman had returned to his vehicle, there would have been no confrontation. In fact, the Miami Herald quotes the Police Department’s coordinator of volunteers as saying that she had warned volunteers – including George Zimmerman – against doing anything more than observing and reporting, and had told them never to act as vigilantes. (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/v-print/2700249/trayvon-martin-shooter-a-habitual.html,
If the police had been alarmed by what Zimmerman was describing in his calls, they would have intercepted Trayvon Martin and questioned him. If the police had questioned him, Trayvon Martin would have been annoyed, but would not have felt threatened, as he did feel when confronted by the person who seemed to be stalking him.
That George Zimmerman got out of his truck and initiated contact with Trayvon Martin refutes the assertion by the police that they had not found evidence to contradict his assertion of self-defense.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin)
Now put yourself in Trayvon Martin’s shoes. You had done nothing wrong, and were just walking along in the pleasant cool of the evening, looking about at the interestingly unfamiliar but pleasant suburb that you were visiting. Gradually you become aware that, incredibly, you are being stalked by a stranger in a truck. The driver must be a criminal or crazy person, and must be be sizing you up to rob or abduct you. You start to run. The stalker then gets out of his truck and corners you. Worse, this stalker has a gun. You try to fend him off, to avoid being forced into a situation where you would become unable to defend yourself. Wouldn’t you reach for the gun, out of desperation? How can punching and a gun-grab by a stalked person be called “an unprovoked attack”, as George Zimmerman asserts? Travon Martin’s actions were all in self defense. Trayvon Martin was the one who “stood his ground”. And he did so only because he had no choice.
Blaming Trayvon is like blaming the victim of a bully for defending himself.
I have a guess as to why George Zimmerman got out of his truck to chase Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman’s patrolling was obsessive, according to the police department. Its obsessiveness suggests that he had fantasies of becoming regarded as a hero. Those fantasies are probably why he chased his suspect on foot. Also, he was emboldened by having a gun.