METHODS OF EXECUTION
This paper uses a variety of sources to explore methods of execution in the American criminal justice system. The topic of execution methods is related to the more general areas of execution, punishment, and capital punishment. By focusing upon methods of execution, it is hoped that there will be a better understanding of how the punishments fit the crimes. The dictionary definition of execution is the infliction of capital punishment or legal punishment (Webster, 1999,p.279). An executioner is an official who inflicts capital punishment pursuant to a legal judgment or warrant. Punishment is defined as a penalty inflicted for an offense or fault. Capital punishment is defined as involving the loss of life.
Although all four of the above terms are relevant to this paper, the two that are focused on primarily are execution and executioner. Execution is the most severe form of punishment. Punishment implies less serious dispositions than loss of life. Execution can be seen as a form of torture that results in death. Thus, an executioner is a more severe disciplinarian than someone who is a punisher.
The history of execution and executioners is interesting and relevant. It dates back to England in the 1500s and 1600s when, during this period, executioners were called hangmen (Newman, 1985,p.258). They were called this because the predominant form of execution was hanging. In the year 1616, through a practical joke involving granting a fictitious coat of arms, executioners in England were assigned the title of esquire, and that title of honor has been associated with all executioners since then (Newman 1985,p.258).
It is important to examine who are the executioners. Some of the famous hangmen of England were Richard Brandon, Edward Dun, Jack Ketch, John Prince, William Marvell, Banks, Arnet, John Hooper, and John Thrift. Richard Brandon, for example, qualified for the post as a boy by beheading cats and dogs (Newman, 1985,p. 259). Edward Dun had the honor of exhuming Cromwell's body and hanging it. Jack Ketch held the office for many years, but bungled several executions, often taking several strokes to sever heads. John Prince held office for only one year until William Marvell took over, his skills as a blacksmith being his qualification. Men known only as Banks and Arnet were executioners until John Hooper was appointed, and by then, the Office of Executioner was firmly a government agency, led by John Thrift. Each of these men, and those who followed, had unique upbringings, qualifications, training, and personalities.
There have been many methods of execution, and most methods are related to historical forms of torture. During the 1500s and 1600s, beheading by axe or sword was common. The executioner, usually hooded, would chop off the offender's head. This manner of execution was quite popular for many years. A second method was beating to death. An example of this was the time when slave masters beat their slaves to death. A third method was boiling alive, a trendy return to a technique that was popular in the Middle Ages. A fourth method was being buried alive. This type of execution is still used in various places around the world. A fifth method was burning at the stake. It was popular during the Inquisition for religious heretics, witches, and uppity women. A sixth method was being eaten by animals. For example, the early Christians were thrown to the lions. A seventh method was skinning or flaying of the skin. With this approach, the skin would be removed from the body in strips. An eighth method was being drawn and quartered. It was often used in combination with hanging and used for extremely serious crimes such as high treason.
Today, the methods of execution include lethal injection and the electric chair. Lethal injection is a method of the death penalty by which a convicted criminal is injected with a deadly dose of barbiturates through an intravenous tube inserted into the arm. The procedure resembles the method used for a patient-undergoing anesthesia before surgery. Although lethal injection has been adopted by several U.S. States since 1980, its first use (1982) stirred a debate over the ethics of using medical procedures and medical professionals to end a life (Golier, 1994,p.299). In contrast, the electric chair was developed with the support of Thomas Edison as an alternative to hanging in the 1880s. The electric chair has killed more than 4,300 people in its 110- year history. Furthermore, in half of the states, and now it has been replaced by lethal injection in all except for three states (Brandon, 1999).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Although this paper is about criticism of the methods of execution, criticisms of the death penalty in general are relevant and reviewed here. One set of criticisms would be on philosophical grounds. For example, the defenders of the death penalty can argue their position in several ways. For example, their first argument could be that protection of society is the central goal or purpose of punishment. Their second point of argument could be that the deterrent and incapacitative efficacy of punishment is the dominant factor in its capacity to protect society. The third argument that the defenders of the death penalty can make is the more severe a punishment is, ceteris paribus, the better it provides deterrence and incapacitation. Therefore, the fourth point that they can dispute is that the death penalty provides better protection to society than long-term imprisonment, a less severe punishment; and so the final point that they can argue is that long-term imprisonment is not a feasible alternative to the death penalty (Bedau, 1987,p.112-113).
Thus, a person arguing the pro side of the death penalty from a philosophical viewpoint would probably believe in the classical school theories of an "eye for an eye" or "tit for tat." Basically, this person believes that if someone commits a crime or act of violence against another human being, then that human being has the right to seek revenge on that person who victimized him or her initially. Therefore, the person whom is pro-death penalty, views the death penalty as a good method or way that a victim can get the justice that he or she deserves. In addition to the defenders, the opposers of the death penalty can also argue their points in a multitude of ways. However, their points happen to be at the opposite end of the spectrum. For example, their first argument can be that the alternative to capital punishment is long-term imprisonment. The second point that they could argue is that long-term imprisonment is free of the worst defect to which the death penalty is liable: execution of the innocent. The third point that the opposers of the death penalty can dispute is that the long-term imprisonment, unlike the death penalty, tacitly acknowledges that there is no way for a criminal, alive or dead, to make complete amends for murder or other grave crimes against the person. The fourth point that they can argue is that long-term imprisonment has symbolic significance. Finally, they could verbally dispute the point that by abolishing the death penalty, or the act of terminating it represents extending the hand of life even to those who by their crimes may have "forfeited" any right to live (Bedau, 1987, p.45).
Thus, a person arguing the con side of the death penalty from a philosophical viewpoint would probably believe in the classical school theories of "love thy enemy" or two wrongs don't make a right." In other words, this type of person believes that if someone commits a crime or act of violence against another human being, than that human being does not have the right to seek revenge on that person who victimized him or her initially. In stead, they should take a more passive aggressive role and let the criminal justice system punish the assailant. Therefore, the person whom is con-death penalty views the death penalty as a bad method or way that a person can get the justice that he or she thinks they deserve. In fact, the opposers think that the death penalty is too harsh a punishment for even the most unscrupulous criminal.
Another set of criticisms would be on religious grounds. For example, the defenders of the death penalty can support their arguments from a religious point of view. When it comes to the proponents of the death penalty supporting their arguments, the Ten Commandments usually play a significant role. The commandments of "thou shall not steal" or "thou shall not kill" coupled with the ideas of an "eye for an eye" and "tit for tat" are the religious philosophies that they use to justify their feelings of wanting crimes to be punished. As far as the opposers of the death penalty are concerned, they to can support their arguments from a religious point of view as well. Like the proponents, some of the Ten Commandments also play an essential role in justifying their feelings. The commandments of "thou shall not steal" or "though shall not kill" are apart of their religious ideals as well. However, these ideals are coupled with "love thy enemy" and two wrongs don't make a right as opposed to the classical schools of thought that have been attributed to the defenders of the death penalty. In fact, the only things that these two opposing parties do agree upon are the following two principles. One is the principle that crimes should be punished, and the other one is the principle that the severity of a punishment should be proportional to the gravity of the offense (Bedau, 1987, p. 39). However, they do not agree upon what crimes fit which punishments.
RESEARCH METHODS
There is some disagreement about whether the death penalty, as a form of severe punishment, will overcome the inefficiencies brought about by delay of punishment. Criminal justice research has focused almost entirely on the relationship between severity and certainty. It has been concluded by most people that severity only has a significant impact on the crime rate when certainty levels are high. Few studies have focused on the severity level as the main or central parameter of punishment. These relationships can be diagrammed as follows, and are adapted from R.D. Parke (1970) Early Experiments and the Process of Socialization. NY: Academic Press.
The second diagram is probably the most well-known, establishing a connection between severity and deterrence.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
(missing section)
REFERENCES
(missing section)
Last updated: 11/12/01