Capital Punishment Is Macabre

Before and since my column the other day defending the “long drop” that decapitated Saddam’s secret police chief, I had two extended discussion-debates with two noted conservative bloggers. Both interchanges, to me, reinforce my usual opposition to capital punishment, primarily because they reinforce my feeling that decent people too often are either or both insulated from the realities of how death occurs and from one of the two major purposes of capital punishment, deterrence of others due to the gruesome death.

In the earlier discussion, the topic was the pride in professionalism of a beheader (news article) in service of one of the Arab states. Many bemoaned his pride. I defended his professional training and focus, as that results in less multiple chop instances, and results in one of the fastest – more humane – deaths.

As the NYT’s article quoted in my “defense” piece pointed out, the “long drop” was purposely chosen by the Iraqi executioners as more humane – faster, rather than the more frequent dangling strangulation of the “official” table. It was known that the “long drop” occasionally causes decapitation – as occurred in this execution – but that is still faster, and more humane.

I also cited authority for the frequent inhumaneness of lethal injection or beheading, to stress that there are shortcomings to and that may occur with other means of execution. Indeed, the often dramatized shot to the back of the head of earlier Russian and Chinese communist practice is most sure and fast.

I quoted how many of the choices of means of execution are more based on less unease from bloody ends for observers or executioners.

One famous columnist wrote me, “of all things to be a scholar on!” Yes, of all things, the details of which we’d rather avoid in our Western sensibilities.

In another piece I argued that capital punishment is “moral” for gross crimes, largely to deter other rulers who may feel insulated by power and position from meeting their personal suffering for their actions and choices.

The bottom line is that any form of execution has shortcomings, more or less severe, and despite efforts to be as precise as possible cannot be in every case due to natural variability of the condemneds and chance.

Either we accept that reality, or hypocritically believe there’s a gentle execution, and undermine both deterrence and punishment. In which case, we’re led to or we might as well forego the execution altogether.

Further, this squemishness is, to me, part and parcel of or serves the interests of those who argue for "humane" war-fighting. There is no such thing as complete scientific or judicial precision on the battlefield.