The Public Execution -- cancelled

Politics & Current Affairs
1

One problem with modern liberalism is that it abhors the dramatic. For example, modern liberalism opposes the death penalty. This is all well and good – abolishing the death penalty would doubtless protect innocent people from being wrongly executed, protect the vengeful public from drenching its hands in the blood of the guilty, and advance civility.

But advancing civility does not always promote morality, or even humanitarian causes. Civility is a fine thing, but it is a veneer disguising the dramatic realities of life. Good breeding (Mark Twain wrote) consists in concealing how much we think of ourselves, and how little we think of the other person. Far be it from me to object to concealment on principle. But liberalism is supposed to promote openness.

The death penalty is a perfect example. An execution used to be a dramatic, public event. The murderer, heavily shackled, was paraded through the streets of the town in a donkey cart. The family of the soon to be deceased wept. The relatives of the murdered watched. The condemned man spoke his last words, which, if the audience was lucky, were something dramatic like, “See you in hell, mom.”

Today the drama of an execution has been demeaned, what with “lethal injection”, an execution technique that makes killing someone look like a medical procedure. Liberalism got rid of the public square, the donkey cart, the guillotine and the gibbet, although we have yet to get rid of the needle. But why should we get rid of the guillotine and the gibbet? Although lethal injection may save the witnesses from queasiness, it is hard to argue that it is much more humane for the guest of honor. And it is certainly less humane for the city desk reporter, who in olden days could write, “The great blade flashed, and X’s head and body (like his soul and body) were permanently severed.” What can be written about lethal injection?

Modern liberalism promotes excessive (and phony) civility. If we can’t ban executions, let’s at least disguise them. If we can’t get rid of poverty, let’s at least get these homeless people off of the street, so we can’t see them anymore.

If we are going to execute people, we should have the courage to avoid concealment. Let’s do it right. In the public square. With a guillotine. If a little blood makes us squeamish, if a head falling into a basket seems inhumane – maybe we should abolish the whole thing.

2

Civilised places sorted these issues long ago by banning executions.

4 Likes
3

Interesting. Liberals have (with some exceptions) tended to oppose the death penalty.

4

That was my point. If one opposes the death penalty, one should publicize the horror involved. By keeping it secret and by making it seem like a medical procedure, it is normalized.

Good plan.

5

I know this is probably a pointless question, but I’m always curious when the word “liberal” comes up: Who exactly do you mean?

6

[! Important] Jainism
Ahimsa anuvrata (Vow of nonviolence)

7

The proposed event was not only to be public but streamed.

Government sanctioned snuff films will provide the same countermeasure to violence we have enjoyed from the coverage of mass shootings.

1 Like
8

I doubt it. If the death penalty is to be a deterrent, wouldn’t public executions make it more of a deterrent? The outrage about making the execution public suggests that it would also galvanize the opposition to the death penalty.

In addition, if we (as a society) are to kill people, shouldn’t we be aware of what we are doing? We may want to ignore it, but is that the moral position? Isn’t avoiding public exposure a form of secrecy that allows us to avoid addressing our culpability (if we are culpable)?

9

My comment was ironic. Terror as a deterrence is the vehicle of complete control.

10

I don’t favor the death penalty, but I think an advocate would say public display would diminish the seriousness of it. It’s not true that advocates don’t value life and find it to be sacred.

11
12

Private Francheska Velez had just finished a tour in Iraq and was set to head home to start her maternity. She was three months pregnant. Little did she know that Nidal Hasan was having a jihadi hissy fit, and went ahead and murdered her and 13 others. Despite the religious nature of the crime, it was diminished to workplace violence, so the victims did not receive the honor and benefits of combat-related tragedy.

I wonder what justice Velez, her unborn child, and their family have received since the whole weight of the justice system took over.

Besides, that was back in 2009. Since then Hasan has been hidden away and protected from the victims and their families, so any chance at justice has long past and largely forgotten.

It turns out that in western societies justice demands the victims and other taxpayers provide for the livelihood of their murderers.

13

In the U.S. it costs more to execute a criminal than to imprison him for life, because of the many appeals and court costs. Also, why does an execution constitute “justice”? Will it bring back
Francheska’s husband? NO doubt murder is unjust – but an execution does nothing to rectify that injustice.

I agree, Banno, that the death penalty as constituted today does little to deter murder. The endless delays and appeals (which are necessary to prevent executing innocents) make the punishment seem so distant and unlikely that it deters nothing. Perhaps, though, if it were public and more immediate, that would change (although I oppose the death penalty either way).

By the way, I think the risk of executing an innocent man is not a good argument against the death penalty. The penalty phase of a trial is separate from the guilt or innocence phase. Of course it is horrible to convict innocent people – whether we kill them or imprison them for life. We should conduct our legals system so as to make this as unlikely as possible. Also, executing an innocent seems more horrible than imprisoning him for life – but both are horrid and it’s only a matter of degree.

14

You begin with an unfounded statement. It is not drama they seek to avoid, but the violation of human rights and executing innocent people. Also, they recognize the bias inherent in the system and the fact that capital punishment does not prevent crime.

I strongly disagree. there are many genuinely civil people.

This comes across as a cheap dig.

This may be a belief of conservatives, who can’t imagine that the goodness of others is genuine because they do not feel the goodness themselves.

It is not about concealment, it is about turning it into a show - a spectacle - for the amusement of the masses.

15

Yes. There is no possibility of justice for murder. There is revenge, and there is preventing the murder from doing it again.

I’m quite sure it’s stopped many people from murdering many times. The risk of prison has surely stopped many people from murdering. But no penalty has ever put an end to murder. No punishment for any crime has ever put an end to that crime.

Knowing public, live-streamed executions would not put an end to murder, why do it? Because there have always been people who get off on watching someone being killed. And I don’t mean just murderers. I’m glad Trump’s desire to see it was opposed my enough Republicans to make him rethink the wisdom of it. I don’t know that human nature will ever change. But there are many aspects of it we should not celebrate. It was a shameful, disgusting idea.

16

Speaking of “cheap digs”, quoting my posts out of context qualifies. I was discussing the “civility” that prefers hiding executions, and thus renouncing our responsibility for them. The “cut and respond” method of posting is, in general, a mark of an inability read the context and construct one’s own coherent paragraphs.

Of course many people don’t want to turn executions into “a show”. It would be a show that reveals the cruelty and barbarity of which we are capable as a society. The “show” would demonstrate that capacity. However, if we are to be cruel and barbarous, perhaps we should be made aware of it.

As far as “recognizing the violation of human rights and executing innocent people”, of course we should avoid convicting innocent people, whether we imprison them or execute them. The question of guilt or innocence is separate from that of punishment.

17

Why did you need to mention liberals at all for the purposes of this thread?

18

Actually, I cribbed my OP from a column I wrote years ago for a liberal, weekly Eugene newspaper. I was a “letter to the editor” writer, but once a year or so I’d write a longer piece they’d (almost always) publish as guest column. This was one. I was tweaking the liberal readership and editorial slant.

It was not meant to be argumentative, but entertaining and provocative. I was bored. I had it on my computer. I thought it was timely (with the latest “streaming” controversy in the U.S.) So I posted it. It’s not a philosophical argument, but a discussion.

1 Like
19

I don’t think a state executions constitutes justice because the victims are rarely involved in the process, but execution is the very least of what Nidal Hasan deserves for what he did. What do you believe he deserves?

20

Some crimes clearly warrant death.

The only reason I am against the death penalty is not because I have moral qualms with unceremoniously putting someone to death who undoubtedly deserves it, but because it gives governments power that they are unlikely to wield responsibly and instead are likely to abuse.

People tend to get caught up in the optics of it, but that is not showcasing their superior civility. It is showcasing their superior ignorance, hypocrisy and cowardice.

I wonder how many people who have had to deal with the fallout of treating serious criminals with velvet gloves would continue to believe it is a good idea to treat their justice system as a convenient avenue to score moral indulgences.