Comments on: Two Deaths

By: Michael Corey

Michael Corey — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:27:00 +0000

The death penalty, it seems to me, is a process involving a series of deaths. First, the private person is “killed” and then the remaining person becomes a public object. As a public object, the shell of the person is humiliated and emotionally mortified for years prior to the actual end point, the execution, a semi-public event. At this point, the state seems to treat it like a disposal project during which as much fear is created as possible, and sometimes with significant amounts of pain inflicted. We actually treat the euthanizing of our pets more humanely than the condemned in an execution. Participating in this process must take its toll on everyone involved, and there does seem to be certain amount of pleasure extracted by killing the condemned in this manner, otherwise other things would be done.

By: Tim Roaenkranz

Tim Roaenkranz — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:40:00 +0000

Michael Corey has a point, when he asks what is the death penalty for? Gary Alan Fine does not address this at all in his article, instead he makes underlying assumptions. “In our resolve we must not act ‘as animals,’ lusting for blood or applauding the killing, but as a community that announces that some do not to remain in our midst. These deaths stand as a recognition of the possibility of evil.” – yes, but out of this does not follow the death penalty. People in prison are removed from our midst already. The death penalty does not add anything, unless it has another function, which for me is the underlying problem of the argument. Basically, Gary Alan Fine applies the principle of Foucault’s “Discipline and Punishment” – unfortunately in the medieval sense. Brewer’s crime attacks the foundation of society and the only reaction is disgust? That reminds me a lot of Foucault’s analyses of the drastic punishments of crimes that challenge the authority of the prince. We should be better than that, because I thought the justice system is not about revenge or equal punishment according to the crime. If it was about this and the goal of the death penalty was to show disgust, than the method of doing it a few years later, more or less out of sight of the public, does not really do the job. If it was to prevent future crimes, than the method is also false: It should be as public and brutal as possible (I am not promoting this, but it is kind of the logical consequence). What I want to say is that there is no reasonable argument for the death penalty on the basis of the principles of our society and justice system. The death penalty is an abnormality that refers to principles of revenge, victim’s retribution and making a wrong right by applying a penalty that has the same effect as the crime.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:02:00 +0000

this is one of those issues that remains outside real political debate because the vast majority of the population support it. This could change if they are presented with persistent evidence, from every angle, of why it is wrong, imperfect, kills innocent people, does not actually deter crime etc. But we will never get at why it should or should not be if we consider its’ victims. The details of James Byrd’s killing are so horrific that any non-Nazi would/can enjoy a moment of enjoyment thinking about his killer being put to death—- but that should remain fantasy. And think about it— the killer made no apology and the family of the man asked for mercy, for no more killing; they knew that revenge would be hollow. Maybe, if we let the killer live long enough in some cell, rotting in a loveless life, he might feel contrition and/or guilt. Maybe not— but would not that be the real payback? To force someone to live everyday a lifeless life with the deed they did. I am slightly incoherent—- but I believe the death penalty is always wrong. It may be the one kantian moral demand I can follow. There should never be state sanctioned killing. Ever. And who knows, we may change public opinion on this. And I know the argument that it would be fine IF it could be applied fairly but it cannot so therefore it is not fine. That is not an argument— it is a way of getting around the thorny issues of race and class and legal representation. There is no such thing as an abstract death penalty. Nothing is more concrete.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:28:00 +0000

death penalty recognizes the possibility of evil, but it necessitates the belief that evil originates in a very particular place- the soul of an individual. this is a convenient place for us to lodge evil because it excuses the rest of us. it pardons us for all our momentary inklings of discrimination or hate or violence: “at least we’re not like that!” As we condemn another’s soul as evil, we pat ourselves on the back for our righteousness. It’s a moment where we can forget that evil is lodged in a social context, a context which like it or not we’re all a part of. But thanks to the death penalty, we can assert the evil of the bad apple without imputing anything about the barrel. phew. i will sleep easy knowing that only a very very rare apple is bad enough to be thrown out.

By: Amy Stuart

Amy Stuart — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:59:00 +0000

Oops, i mean principle, sorry.

By: Michael Corey

Michael Corey — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:16:00 +0000

What purpose does the death penalty serve? Is is prevent other crimes? If so, it doesn’t seem to have much of an impact? Is it for retribution or revenge? If so, the cathartic moment only lasts for an instance? Is it for cost control? If so, with all the steps in the appeals process, this may not make sense either unless it is carried out swiftly. I’m still not sure why in the worst of cases, life at hard labor isn’t a better deterrent, satisfies those looking for vengeance, and allows for the possibility of correcting wrongful convictions.

By: Amy Stuart

Amy Stuart — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:09:00 +0000

What is the specific, universal principal according to which Brewer’s execution is defensible? That his crime was heinous? That we’re really sure he did it? Neither of those principles forecloses the possibility of abuse.

More importantly, Fine argues that, “These deaths stand as a recognition of the possibility of evil.” I don’t think anyone denies the possibility of evil. The problem is when we try to externalize it, and claim that we have the absolute and infallible capacity to identify it in the Other, to isolate it, and to snuff it out. No good has ever come of that.

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:15:00 +0000

Fine’s case, the only reasonable one that I know of, for the death penalty requires that it be very rare, and it would seem that Americans are not likely to do that. The blood lust that has been apparent at moments during the Republican debates and the statistics Scott quotes are humbling. Fine’s is an interesting theoretical exercise, but I am not sure it is more than that.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:01:00 +0000

I find it difficult to argue that in all cases, without exception, the death penalty is indefensible. At least I would say it should certainly be rare, very rare. Yet according to the Death Penalty information center, there have been 1270 executions in the US since 1976. That means every ten days in the US someone is executed. Not really my definition of “rare.”

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:54:00 +0000

The New York Times asserted that the death penalty is indefensible. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/opinion/an-indefensible-punishment.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Fine proves them wrong. It can be sensibly justified, as Fine does here. I still am against the death penalty as a matter of principle and political commitment, but it is wrong to assert that your opponent can’t make any sense.