Comments on: Behind the Black Hood: Death Row Inmates Seek Identity of their Future Executioners http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/20/behind-the-black-hood-death-row-inmates-seek-identity-of-their-future-executioners/ Res ipsa loquitur ("The thing itself speaks") Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:34:19 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Vincent Caminiti http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/20/behind-the-black-hood-death-row-inmates-seek-identity-of-their-future-executioners/#comment-5999 Vincent Caminiti Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:09:53 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/20/behind-the-black-hood-death-row-inmates-seek-identity-of-their-future-executioners/#comment-5999 Very curious indeed. There are a number of arguments one could posit on both sides of this, in an academic way. The identity of the executioner, in this article, is the State. Just as the petitioners for justice by the District Attorney, is the people, or if you will, the State. Any discussion though, of Military execution seems rather out of place here for at least two bold-faced reasons. First, the military takes (presumably) regular soldiers and assigns them as a firing squad. This would be the equivalent of the judge selecting 10 citizens in the gallery to act as executioners. Secondly, military execution is less about punishment and more about practical barbarism. Generally the military has been very reluctant to execute under UCMJ, unless the underlying crime resulted in the death of another member of the US military or military dependent. The act of execution in the military ranks is more of extreme preening than it is criminal justice. The civilian government execution may have its roots in barbaric purification, as much as quelling retribution by citizens. Also, for centuries we've heard the discussion on its alleged value towards deterring crime among the populace. In any case, the legal arguments seem so trite, when considering that in the civilian example, we practice extermination; but the argument here is about who's rights should prevail in performing this extreme means to an end. My personal view is that if our society feels compelled to take human life as punishment - it should be in the least clinical manner and we should be confronted with our barbaric and morbidly curious nature each time someone is executed. Bring back the firing squads and televise the event on C-Span. Use the guillotine, very precise and with new technology, essentially fool proof. Connect the people with the fruits of their political contributions and support - and perhaps they would not be so apt to casually discuss the taking of human life as though it were a work of fiction. Let us see the blood stained wall outside the State Capitol Building and perhaps we'd be more concerned who resides inside the walls on our behalf. Thus, the argument of the article would be moot. Perhaps regular citizens could be compelled to be part of the firing squad of one's peers, in the same way as a jury. Lastly, it seems as though the arguments about identity are more likely arguments toward death-penalty awareness than they are about actually ascertaining the identity of the 'executioner.' Very curious indeed. There are a number of arguments one could posit on both sides of this, in an academic way.

The identity of the executioner, in this article, is the State. Just as the petitioners for justice by the District Attorney, is the people, or if you will, the State.

Any discussion though, of Military execution seems rather out of place here for at least two bold-faced reasons. First, the military takes (presumably) regular soldiers and assigns them as a firing squad. This would be the equivalent of the judge selecting 10 citizens in the gallery to act as executioners. Secondly, military execution is less about punishment and more about practical barbarism. Generally the military has been very reluctant to execute under UCMJ, unless the underlying crime resulted in the death of another member of the US military or military dependent. The act of execution in the military ranks is more of extreme preening than it is criminal justice.

The civilian government execution may have its roots in barbaric purification, as much as quelling retribution by citizens. Also, for centuries we’ve heard the discussion on its alleged value towards deterring crime among the populace.

In any case, the legal arguments seem so trite, when considering that in the civilian example, we practice extermination; but the argument here is about who’s rights should prevail in performing this extreme means to an end.

My personal view is that if our society feels compelled to take human life as punishment – it should be in the least clinical manner and we should be confronted with our barbaric and morbidly curious nature each time someone is executed. Bring back the firing squads and televise the event on C-Span. Use the guillotine, very precise and with new technology, essentially fool proof. Connect the people with the fruits of their political contributions and support – and perhaps they would not be so apt to casually discuss the taking of human life as though it were a work of fiction. Let us see the blood stained wall outside the State Capitol Building and perhaps we’d be more concerned who resides inside the walls on our behalf.

Thus, the argument of the article would be moot. Perhaps regular citizens could be compelled to be part of the firing squad of one’s peers, in the same way as a jury.

Lastly, it seems as though the arguments about identity are more likely arguments toward death-penalty awareness than they are about actually ascertaining the identity of the ‘executioner.’

]]>