|
Jewish World Review Jan. 16, 2003 / 13 Shevat, 5763
James Lileks
One of those head vs. heart things
It's possible to be in favor of the death penalty, and still oppose it. One of those head vs. heart things. In your heart, you hear
the details of a particular crime, and you're all for execution. You want the miscreant breaking rocks in the hot sun right up
until the moment he's dragged off to the gallows. "The victims were churchgoing folk," the warden shouts through a bullhorn.
"Use the extra-scratchy rope." And when he's dead, you want him brought back to life and executed again. Stuff his pants
with meat and stake him out in the desert. Let the coyotes do the Creator's will.
Not a pretty emotion, but we've all felt this atavistic spasm when we read about some hideous crime. Electrocution, the rope,
the last stand against the pockmarked wall - they satisfy the need for vengeance. They inflict fear on the murderer. His heart
will batter against his ribcage and his brain will flood with disbelief and panic, and he will know what his victims knew. The
hushed ritual of the gurney, with its tranquilizing drugs and the quick fatal prick, seems unsatisfyingly civilized and humane. It
doesn't seem fair to put down a murderer with the same tools you'd use on your beloved old dog. For some, it's not that
capital punishment is cruel and unusual - it's not cruel and unusual enough.
On the other hand: opponents say that life in the noisy hell of prison is worse than death. Perhaps. But when Gov.
Ryan announced his decision, one suspects that a wail of dismay did not unfurl from death's row. We're NOT going to die?
No! Say it isn't so! Get me my mouthpiece! I demand execution!
The alternative to execution is letting them rot. Put them in a bright tiled cell, chained to a bench. (On Christmas they
undo the shackle for half an hour, and give the inmate a thimble of pureed turkey.) Many supporters of capital punishment
might embrace the let-them-rot model if they actually, well, rotted. But no. If the murderer puts on a nice act in prison, gets a
few mail-order degrees, pens thoughtful stories for the prison broadsheet, then come parole time there's a nice profile in the
local paper. The con will usually have "neatly trimmed hair, now flecked with gray," and his glasses "give him an almost
bookish demeanor." He will say nice thoughtful things about prison conditions and social injustice, and the story will conclude
that this man who is writing a history of creamed corn in institutional cuisine seems far removed from the meth freak who
shotgunned three teens in a convenience store.
As for the stories of those three teens, well, they don't have any stories. They're dead.
So capital punishment has its problems. Life in prison has its problems. Question: if you were unjustly accused and convicted,
which set of problems would you prefer?
The perfect is often the enemy of the good - but if you're using the power of the state to execute people, perfection must be
the goal. Some fine moral people believe capital punishment is a necessary tool, the only way society can deal with vile rats
who've forfeited all claims to mercy. Others have their Ryan Moment: they wonder what they would do if their doubts grew
loud and large, and they had the power to amplify the murmurs of their conscience.
Commutation is not a pardon. The convicted killers will die, alone, bereft, withered, unloved. Be patient. Let time grind them
down and blow the dust away. No parole, no Pell Grants, no weight rooms, no TV. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
Forty years in a small box. Then a cold eternity in a smaller one. It's not perfect. But we can live with that.
12/27/02: Whistleblowers?
|