• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • An Odd Argument on the Death Penalty

    Jon Yorke, a British law lecturer who has written widely on the U.S. death penalty, argues that the law’s focus on the actual act’s pain (Baze v. Rees, presently pending in the Supreme Court, asks how courts should consider the risk of pain during execution) may be misplaced:

    While hypoxia might meet the approval of some, others argue that focusing on the dying moments of a prisoner is a distraction to the wider issue – the mental trial of being on death row for months or years.

    “No method of execution can prevent the knowledge that you are going to die by the state in the future,” says Jon Yorke, a law lecturer who has done extensive death penalty research in the US. “That will have a psychological impact, it can never be humane.”

    The so-called “death row phenomenon” affects an inmate in two ways, says Mr Yorke. One concerns the mind. In 1986 in Florida, Alvin Ford escaped the death penalty because he had become insane on death row.

    The other is the physical impact of the structure in which an inmate is being held. In Oklahoma, where cells on death row are deprived of sunlight, a prisoner may endure 25 years without Vitamin D.

    This argument is not unique to Mr. Yorke–U.S.-based opponents of the death penalty have raised it increasingly of late. It is an odd point: that the exercise of the judicial process, with standard incarceration during that time (in Baze, for example, no one disputes that Mr. Baze shot a sheriff twice in the back before finishing him off execution-style, a crime surely punishable by incarceration), is itself a possibly cruel and unusual punishment.

    One is almost tempted to say that the convicted felon generally has the power to hasten the appeals process, perhaps by years or even decades, if the pain of suffering it is itself too great. To the extent that this happens only rarely, perhaps we can conclude that convicted criminals–almost always cold-blooded murderers–are not quite convinced by the argument Yorke raises.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to An Odd Argument on the Death Penalty

    1. Pingback: Back Exercise » An Odd Argument on the Death Penalty

    2. LeveragedLogic says:

      The whole damn argument is stupid. Both sides.

      I used to be in favor of the death penalty… I was living in the Boston area when two guys walked into a convenience store and stabbed the cashier to death in a robbery. The cashier was a twenty-something Asian immigrant who was working two jobs and putting himself through school, with a wife and infant daughter. The robbers made off with something like thirteen dollars. I thought that if these guys got caught, I'd like to execute them myself, with a blunt object if possible.

      I expressed this sentiment to a smarter, more even tempered friend, and he was really surprised that I felt that way. He was in law school, and I guess had been thinking about this lately.

      What he said totally changed my mind. He basically said that he didn't have a problem with executing people who had done terrible things, he had a problem with trusting the government to not make a mistake. He pointed to the DMV, the IRS, The Social Security Administration, and all the other bloated bureaucracies in our system and said, "What, they never made a mistake with you? One you had an almost impossible time correcting? The government isn't competent enough to make life and death decisions."

      Bickering over the two silly arguments above is pointless, because you both miss the point. The process of applying the death penalty is inherently flawed and therefore immoral, and should be abolished. Until one can be sure an innocent person (which, let's remember, could easily be you or me) isn't being wrongfully imprisoned and killed, we shouldn't be doing it at all.

    3. Jerefoy says:

      Leveraged Logic: there is a disconnect between government and jury of peers that you and your friend seem to have embraced … along with every other conspiracy theorist. Based on your logic, should we entrust the government with national defense?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×