Matt Watson is the opinion editor of The Reflector. He can be contacted at [email protected]. There has been controversy recently over the constitutionality of lethal injection. A debate that has waged for years and that is ultimately pointless received national attention this week in a Supreme Court case brought on by a Kentucky death row inmate.
The Supreme Court upheld lethal injection as an appropriate form of capital punishment Wednesday, to the dismay of death row inmates’ lawyers and a number of others who oppose the death penalty.
The question at hand deals specifically with whether or not lethal injection causes severe pain. Although subjects are rendered unconscious by the injection, it is argued the level of unconsciousness is not high enough not to feel excruciating pain.
The largely conservative Supreme Court justices ruled that “simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of ‘objectively intolerable risk of harm’ that qualifies as cruel and unusual.”
The justices’ opinion makes sense but will likely come under scrutiny. They will be criticized, not because they declared lethal injection wasn’t inhumane, but because they have essentially furthered the death penalty. That is the real reason, and we should be aware of it for several other reasons.
Yes, lethal injection probably hurts. That’s death for you. If you believe, as I do, that the death penalty is essentially moral, it doesn’t matter whether lethal injection hurts or not. After all, capital punishment is punishment, the ultimate form of punishment. The idea is that a criminal gets what he deserves.
However, if you believe the death penalty is essentially immoral, I would argue that the extent to which lethal injection is humane should not be your matter of concern, as all forms of capital punishment would be inhumane anyway, whether they are painful or not. Under this mindset, one would logically ask, “How can any form of killing a human be humane.”
So the debate over lethal injection really has nothing to do with lethal injection. The debate is characterized by two sides and is just a legal/superficial way to argue for or against the death penalty. The debate will never go anywhere if we relegate ourselves to discussing a specific form of the death penalty, with each side simply arguing from opposite backgrounds of belief. No matter the perspective through which one views the death penalty, arguing over specifics is illogical and often damages both sides’ viewpoints.
Someone who agrees with the death penalty is backed into arguing that lethal injection doesn’t really hurt that bad and should be legal according to the Constitution. This causes all kinds of problems, because it is contradictory. Death is painful, and there is no escape from that.
Supporters of the death penalty have long allowed themselves to stray away from the fact that capital punishment is practiced primarily for retribution. Often, I notice people relying on other reasons to support the death penalty. It reduces prison costs. It sends a message to other potential criminals and reduces crime. If there were no death penalty, it is argued, then nothing would stop people from killing all over the place.
These explanations were among a few given by George W. Bush in an interview with Bill O’Reilly a couple of years ago.
However, these reasons are largely misconceptions. There are countries that have done away with the death penalty and did not spin into some sort of doomsday chaos. Supporters of the death penalty should come to terms with the real reason for their position, which is retribution, revenge or whatever you want to call it. It seems that conservatives don’t like to admit this because to them it sounds too unlike Jesus, but you must call things what they are, nonetheless.
The liberal position on the death penalty also suffers contradictions by arguing the death penalty is inhumane. This argument implies that some forms of the death penalty are in fact OK, but most protesters of the death penalty would not admit this.
In closing, I would like to clarify that I am not trying to say it is morally wrong to be against the death penalty. It is a decision everyone has to make and usually goes hand in hand with religion.
I am simply advocating that commentators bring out the true motivations of their beliefs.