The controversy regarding the abolishing of capital punishment is, to some, as simple as saying “No.” But, in fact there are many views and opposing views in which must be considered to adequately single out an alternative. John Stuart Mill said:
“The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this.” (Winters, 1997, 9)
Consider the following three examples of opposing views which also questions morality: 1) Capital punishment is cruel and unusual or not cruel and unusual, 2) Innocent people are likely to be executed or not likely to be executed, and 3) The mentally disabled can be fairly executed or cannot be fairly executed.
It is relatively simple to declare the Electric Chair as cruel and unusual. Presently, the U.S has adopted the lethal injection as the most humane method of death for inmates due to the least amount of pain and suffering that it inflicts. According to Friedman, often prisoners who are injected with the lethal chemicals always tend to “choke, cough, spasm and writhe as they die” (2006, 37). Such evidence indicates that the lethal injection is no more painless than the Electric Chair. A case involving inmate Richard Townes in 1995, took 40 minutes for officers to prepare and inject Mr. Townes with the lethal chemicals (Friedman, 2006). Nicholas Jenkins, art and literature critique, argues “However advanced the aesthetics of state death, an execution is still a killing, a legal homicide...the lethal injection will look as sickening a hundred years from now as the electric chair does today” (Winters, 94). In opposition, according to a poll conducted by Newsweek in June 2000, 13 percent of the individuals surveyed agreed that the death penalty provides consolation for the victims’ loved ones, and 26 percent agreed that the death penalty provides an “eye for an eye” punishment (Friedman and O’Sullivan, 43). In essence, the people believe that a crime such as rape and murder of an 8 year old girl is equal punishment to death or a “life for a life”. Stuart A. Creque argues, “It is in fact possible to conceive of a method of execution that would cause neither pain nor physical trauma, require no medical procedure… and use no hazardous chemicals” (Winters, 95). Creque recommends the use of Nitrogen asphyxiation; this gas does not make the person feel as if they are choking. The person first feels sleepy followed by drowsiness and finally the person falls unconscious. Creque says, “A condemned man…would experience no more pain or suffering than he created in his own mind” (Winters, 1997, P. 99). Capital punishment is regarded as cruel and unusual by many people, but oppositionists argue that there are methods which are cheap and relatively painless as an alternative, as per Creque’s example.
A major issue is the concern that innocent people are actually likely to be wrongfully accused and executed. Governor George Ryan of the State of Illinois between 1999-2003, was a supreme supporter of capital punishment until he learned of Anthony Porter’s release of death row by Dave Protess, Northwestern University Professor, who took the case with his students and freed Anthony Porter from a wrongfully accused double homicide (Friedman, 2006, P. 112). After this incidence, Governor Ryan was no longer a supporter but became an activist against capital punishment days before the end of his term (Friedman, 2006). The matter of the fact is that innocent deaths can and will occur in death row; no one can surely say how just the deaths from capital punishment have been. The U.S district court judge deemed capital punishment unconstitutional due to new DNA technology which revealed the innocence of many death row inmates. U.S District court judge says, “…based on DNA and new scientific technology we undoubtedly executed innocent people before this technology emerged” (Friedman, 2006, 114). In opposition to Governor Ryan’s view is the fact that many of those who have been released from death row are not actually innocent. Ramesh Ponnuru, Editor of the National Review, claims that participants in murder have been released solely due to the fact that they did not pull the trigger even though they agreed to the murder of the victim (Friedman, 2006). Jonathan Treadaway, who had a previous conviction of sexually assaulting a 13-year old boy, was found guilty of the murder of a 6 year old boy after a palm print, found in the little boy’s window, was matched to his (Friedman, 2006). Treadaway claimed that he didn’t know why the presence of his hand prints were in the little boy’s room; but according to evidence, Treadaway was rightfully accused and convicted. The outcome would had satisfied 57% of Americans who prefer capital punishment, according to the Gallup Poll of 1995, because it protects the lives of those outside of prison, despite the shedding of innocent blood due to wrongful executions (Bender and Leon, 1997).
A big moral question which strikes controversy and excites debates is whether the mentally challenged should be executed subjected to execution. Dobie Gillis Williams, who was mentioned earlier, had an IQ of 65, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale places him below the retardation level of 70. The question is, “Was Mr. Williams aware of his crime?” Richard Lowry, editor for National Review, contends that the mentally retarded are fully capable and cognitive of their actions; therefore they should be held guilty of their crimes and be fairly instated in the death penalty system (Friedman, 2006). He proposes that those below the IQ average are not mentally disabled but mentally slow; just because they are deemed retarded does not exclude the fact that they are not cognitively capable or unable to device an evil strategy for murder. In Lowry’s view of the death penalty in regards to the mentally challenged, Mr. Williams’ case is justified. On the other hand, Jamie Fellner, an attorney with Human Rights Watch, contends that the mentally challenged are “uniquely disadvantaged in life and in court” (Friedman, 2006). Often, the mentally retarded tend to admit to crimes that they did not commit, even waive their rights because they lack the mental capacity to defend themselves (Friedman, 2006). The mentally challenged are not aware or even logistically capable to comprehend the circumstances in which they’re in. Earl Washington Jr., confessed to several convictions of murder during a lengthy interrogation, what’s surprising was all the inaccuracies present in Mr. Washington’s confession stories. For example he admitted to the murder of a black woman in 1982 but in fact she was white; he also claimed that he kicked down the door, when the door was still in one piece and showed no signs of puncture (Friedman, 2006). Fellner’s point of view is the fact that these mentally retarded criminals are no more cognitively capable then that of a 12 year old, therefore, the mentally retarded should not and ought not to be trialed as a fully cognitive capable person, but trialed as a minor, and be waived out of the death penalty.
