Zero Tolerance, Times Seven
Some people oppose capital punishment because they feel that racial minorities are more likely than whites to be executed. Others point to the fact that dozens of death row denizens have actually been proven not to have committed the murder(s) for which they have been sentenced to die; many, regrettably, were so judged after their execution.
Those who think capital punishment is a good idea because it deters crime have their heads...in the sand. Those who suggest that killing someone is the only way to make sure that they won’t do it again are either lazy in the head or stupid.
Our system of putting people to death would be ridiculous on its face if it weren’t so tragically mired in failure. Not only do we kill the wrong people, but it takes more than ten years of appeals at a cost of over a million dollars to get the job done, right or wrong. How ironic, when the crime for which they should lose their lives was likely committed in a matter of minutes for a handful of change.
Twenty years ago, a bunch of Utah prison guards with rifles shot Gary Gilmore as he sat in a chair a short distance away with a heart-shape pinned to his chest. Many thought that was barbaric. Today, we have become so sensitive about the process of dispatch that the gas chamber and electric chair are being replaced by the more humane lethal injection.
Now if this isn’t sheer lunacy, I’m not entirely clear as to what would be. Humane execution? First of all, why would we want it to be humane? Why wouldn’t we want this murderous miscreant to suffer? I’m not suggesting that we should drag him out to the middle of the local football field and have him pulled apart by large animals, although that would certainly feed a degree of blood lust. But at least in the good old days, the villain had to suffer the terror of hearing the pellets falling into the acid, followed by the hiss of the gas that would end his life. Or he’d be strapped in for his final dance with Ole Sparky, the wet sponge on his head for greater conductivity. Now that made him think, albeit briefly.
Instead nowadays, the evil one lies down on a gurney, and needles are inserted into his arm. It’s not like someone yells Off the bastard! and he gets jabbed with a hypodermic. A nod of an official head, and the poison flows into his veins. After a few moments he goes to sleep. It’s not Club Med, but if it were your wife or children he had killed, would you feel that he had suffered enough?
This subject comes to mind because yesterday a 42-year-old man who was unhappy with doings at his software consulting firm shot seven of his colleagues to death. In a matter of minutes, he irreparably and grievously shattered many lives. He will go on trial, be convicted, and probably die in jail, but will that be enough pain for what he’s done? Maybe the relatives of his victims should have a few minutes with him alone. Maybe he should be thrown into a pit and left to rot in his own waste.
If we would forego more painful punishment, it would certainly be clean and neat — and save a lot of money — if the police simply shot him on site. It wouldn’t always be a practical solution, of course, and considering the track record of law enforcement, not one I’d readily suggest. But in this case, like others where there was no doubt about culpability, popping him right then and there would allow the healing to begin rather than forcing the survivors to have to endure the legal proceedings that would keep the wounds open.
And that’s SetonnoteS...I’m Tony Seton.