Thursday, April 17, 2008

Baze v. Rees-- OK, Let the Killings Begin Again

According to family lore, my father (for a little while) served as the physician who pronounced death after executions in Texas. I can't remember who told me this, but it could be true.

I guess the method of execution would have been electrocution at that time (the 50's), so a doctor would not have been needed to help in the killing.

The reason I think it may be true is that he and I shared a couple of characteristics: First, we began with a great sense of personal entitlement that put us above any sense of a morality we shared with the rest of the world. In other words, those rules were good for others, but we were different and not really bound by them. Second, we pushed for the excitement of a new experience.

This combination had special harsh consequences for both of us, he far worse than me, at least so far. We did not accept personal limitations, so we learned them the hard way.

Family lore also says (and he may have told me this, though I don't remember for sure) that he was so sickened and guilt ridden by watching the executions and participating in the pronouncing of death that he never really recovered. Because this was not the only thing that haunted him, it may not have been, as we say legalistically, "the sole cause" of his distress, but certainly a factor.

This whole episode set me fairly early against the death penalty. I remember the argumentwhen I was a little Baptist kid in McAllen that if we execute a criminal, he may not have time for the salvation and eternal bliss that God intended for him. I readily grabbed on this reason to oppose the death penalty when superimposed on the nausea that came with the execution stories.

Now, of course, I am more practiced in reasons to oppose the death penalty, but it remains a visceral reaction first.

The Supremes cavil. Even the dissenters don't appear to flatly oppose the death penalty. One of the concurring opinions discusses the ethical objections of doctors, nurses and EMT in participating in executions and the argument that the refusal of professionals to partipate makes it more likely cruel.

If only my Dear Old Dad had been able to benefit from those professional restrictions to protect him from himself.

5 comments:

Unknown said...

Death penalty opponents like to equate execution and murder, believing that if two acts have the same ending or result, then those two acts are morally equivalent. This is a morally untenable position. Is the legal taking of property to satisfy a debt the same as auto theft? Both result in loss of property. Are kidnapping and legal incarcerations the same? Both involve imprisonment against one's will. Is killing in self defense the same as capital murder? Both end in taking human life. Are rape and making love the same? Both may result in sexual intercourse. How absurd. Opponents’ flawed logic and moral confusion mirror their "factual" arguments - there is, often, an absence of reality. The moral confusion of some opponents is astounding.
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science

FE FEFH

Mas Triste said...

ES,

You said, "Now, of course, I am more practiced in reasons to oppose the death penalty..".

I say: Do you base your opposition to the death penalty because you are move evolved, shall we say enlightened?

K

Unknown said...

Dear Mr. K,

Alas, I am neither evolved, nor enlightened. This is primal stuff for me.

The cow I saw with her calf. She would have killed me if I had tried to touch the calf. It put me off mollejas for a month.

A damaged human being in my charge is at least as deserving as this calf.

Lord, may I have the moral sensibility of a cow.

Mas Triste said...

Sir,

That subjective logic is impenetrable.

Kind of reminds me of the word's In the word of the famous 20th century cartesian Philosopher "Popeye" who once said, "I Yam What I Yam".

Kurgan

Mas Triste said...
This comment has been removed by the author.