China has decided to phase out the traditional firing squads in favor of lethal injection for future executions.
They think lethal injection is more humane.
However, here in the U.S., recent evidence suggests that lethal injection often does not work as expected, and can cause a slow, excruciatingly painful death.
As a result, executions have been put on hold in many states in the U.S. pending a decision by the Supreme Court as to whether or not lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment. The case (Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439) will be argued on Monday, January 7.
China will not reveal its actual lethal injection protocol, so we can't determine whether it's "better" or "worse" than what we've been using here in the U.S. But can any form of execution really be considered humane? The human rights community doesn't think so.
In response to this development in China, Catherine Baber, Asia-Pacific director for Amnesty International, said, "The extension of the lethal injection program flies in the face of the clear international trend away from using the death penalty and ignores the problems inherent in this punishment."
Baber continued, "Arbitrary application, miscarriages of justice, including executing the innocent, and the cruel and inhumane nature of the death penalty cannot be solved by changing the method of execution."
Indeed.
We need to stop this state-sanctioned killing worldwide. We have to stop the absurd practice of killing people who kill people in order to show people that killing people is wrong.
The death penalty constitutes revenge, not justice.
###
http://www.maryshawonline.com
Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views appear regularly in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and websites. Note that the ideas expressed here are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty International or any other organization with which she may be associated.
Killing incarcerated people who pose no serious threat to society, simply because they "deserve" it, is indefensible. It's Biblically (I'm talking the Gospels & the Prince of Peace, here), philosophically, morally, ethically, abjectly, and objectively and just about any other-ly I could think of, WRONG!
Jayne Stahl posted a nice piece by Mike Farrell here:
How Do You Compensate 27 Years of Unjust Imprisonment?by coryDMISat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:56:58 AM PST
[Promoted from the Diaries by Meteor Blades because plenty of such stories don't have such comparatively "happy endings."]
On Thursday, after spending 27 years in prison for a crime that he did not commit, Charles Chatman walked free. The world -- or the world outside of jail, that is -- was a different place than that he had left nearly three decades ago. After only using spoons in prison, he had to relearn how to use a knife to cut his steak. The judge for his case even had to teach him how to use a cell phone -- a newfangled technology, for 47-year-old Chatman -- so he could call his family. Chatman is the 15th wrongfully convicted prisoner in Dallas County who has been exonerated by DNA evidence since 2001.
by
Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 301 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 12:08:50 PM
When Justice is non-existent it is murder to execute anyone!
This country is broken from top to bottom in every aspect of every subject matter.America only functions because it is the only game in town.
In court, if you can cover up the truth from the jury you can convict anyone.It does not matter if it is the defense or the prosecution, by twisting the truth or labeling the defendant as “a bad person” by the color of one’s skin, or gender can manipulate a jury to convict an innocent man, many be even to their death at the hands of the state.
For America to call itself a land of laws that make it great, this laws must be applied to all and justice must be served, not the agenda of a few.That Charles Chatman, once DNA confirmed his innocence, should not have had to fight to get out of jail, he should have just been released.The question we need to ask is how many people have died in jail, been executed by the system, before the truth was reveled.
by
Michael Morris (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 297 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 12:25:01 PM
There is no logical justification for capital punishment some make the seeming logical exception of cost...ie why continue to keep a problem prisoner for $60k per p. y.?
Even this is fatally flawed in that it assumes that truth and justice can be assured by an equally flawed legal system. We've all seen the court dramas where Truth andjustice are the volumes propping up the wonky leg of the court reporters desk. Yes, they are movies but exposed miscarriages of justice prove that they contain more than an element of truth.
Execution it is intellectually, morally and philosophically indefensible. The western legal system that is predicated on pre set rules that immediately puts truth and justice (what ever the latter is) at several arbitrary disadvantages.
One can't have justice without truth and when there are technical exclusions of facts, gamesmanship, unfair differences between the sides in skill and resources T&J must be at risk.
Add to that the prejudices of the media and court officers and state idiosyncrasy in both laws and local mindset (prejudices) (Jenna is a clear example of this)
.Democracy is based on the assumption that the numbers will exclude the extremes resulting in a middle or (reasonable) conclusion. This doesn’t apply on group dynamics in a jury room.
I can tell you from experience that in emotionally charged cases the pressure is on both conformity and is deeply influenced by the strongest personalities… (The ones with the strongest views).
Then there’s the issue of juries, hell judges not understanding the nature and qualifications of some evidence.
Experts have agendas and prejudices too.If all this is at play in a nominally Democratic Country one has to be more worried by a regime that doesn’t have the same checks and balances (limited as they are). To those who favor the Chicken Little approach I would offer the following:
1.Don’t confuse the law(s) with T & J. (the justice system)
2.The problems we see have been with us for a very long time. Only our awareness has changed (media) and national attitudes (laws). This is proven that many of the miscarriages of justice relate to dates long past one related to 26 years ago.
3.No one is saying the system couldn’t be improved (even dramatically) it is up to the citizenry to propose and force change.
Your turn
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 7:17:39 PM
