This week the U.S. Supreme Court listened to oral arguments on death penalty. However, the case currently before the court will not deal with the constitutionality of the death penalty per se. Instead, they will deal with procedure used in administering the lethal injection.
The argument before the court is that the three-drug cocktail used in most U.S. executions is unnecessarily complicated and subject to error, particularly when administered by untrained prison officials. It often is administered by untrained people. There are no books or studies on how to kill people humanely. An error in administration of the drugs might result in prisoner being alive but paralyzed and experiencing agonizing pain. The court must decide how likely this is to happen and if it is likely to happen often would that then make this execution procedure unconstitutionally cruel.
What the Court probably won’t consider, but (at least in my view) should consider, is whether or not the death penalty makes sense at all. As a nation we are ambivalent about the death penalty. On one hand, that we maintain executions in the face of a world-wide trend to eliminate them, demonstrates our belief personal accountability for actions. On the other hand, many Americans prefer to eliminate the death penalty and replace it with a life-without-parole sentence. In a recent poll, a substantial number of respondents said they could not serve on a death-penalty jury.
We need the Supreme Court to render a final decision on the death penalty. Are state executions inherently cruel and unconstitutional? Or, is personal responsibility for actions of such importance that we can overlook the possibility of an occasional innocent being put to death and occasionally causing a prisoner to die in excruciating pain?
In my view, the death penalty is the ultimate irreversible punishment. As a nation, we should be certain that we think it is a good idea. Given our national ambivalence, perhaps it would be to do away with it altogether.
Technorati Tags: 
Post new comment