We pay for it.
We pay to execute people, and it is done in our name.
Should the State shield taxpayers from it?
This is not a question about whether capital punishment right or wrong. Rather, if we have it, should we be kept from seeing it?
We're talking about bringing the actions of the State into the light... this is certainly something that is kept from us.
Obviously, serious provisions would be made for guarding children from seeing it.
[Keep this in mind -- When an executed prisoner's body is autopsied, the cause of death is listed as "Homicide." As funders of the State, our hand, by extension, is at work when that life is terminated. If we choose to look away, that's our choice. If the State prevents us from seeing it, they make that choice for us. Should the State be allowed to prevent us from seeing the full extent of the actions it commits in our name, with our resources?]
Comments (8)
This has a lot of negative votes, but no comments to explain them. I'm surprised by it.
Most are against TV coverage of the death penalty because the killing anyone, even by the government, is also a cruel and unusual punishment.
I agree. Like the question asks though, if this is done in our name and with our resources, should we be shielded form the reality of it?
I posted it because I read this fact, and it stuck with me. In the 1830s and 1840s, there was a growing majority against capital punishment that was on the verge of retiring the practice. At that point, public executions were banned, and from then on conducted behind closed doors. Since that time, comfort with the death penalty has increased, and approval generally steadily grown.
You are right. We should also feel the wrongs we for which we are responsible. I would change my vote.
When you broadcast the execution does it include a synopsis of the crime, pan of the victim/s' families, interviews with the relatives of the condemned? I would think that such broadcasts would lead to such shows. One of the reasons not to broadcast is to question what purpose is served by the viewing? So you can record 'Greatest Criminals and their Executions'? To show that XXX died? .....?
I agree to make State euthanasia viewable by those who care to watch, but never forced. I would also like to have State-funded abortions viewable (although protecting the parent identity). State funded death is death. When hearts stop, it's death. Death is death.
@rwinkelbauer,
That's the real question. In a stable society, changing practice to broadcast executions would probably have a positive effect -- showing the injustice of murder in all forms, it'd evoke a discussion. In an unstable divided society, one that isn't capable of holding much of a dialogue, it might just turn into a spectacle. I think ti'd generally be the latter though. If we began broadcasting executions, I'm sure media coverage surrounding them, the crime and the victims would heavily increase. The state would not be producing "execution specials." As always, media would interpret and transmit the story, using evidence (the broadcast) provided by the state. It seems most likely, that if broadcasting was standard practice, that it would be available on OnDemand or similar view-upon-request formats. I don't know fourth amendment stuff well enough to know whether you could control rebroadcast by the media. The news freely airs image of death and dying in war, even common murder. Would the state be allowed to place access/rebroadcast restrictions on its homicides? That would certainly by hypocritical, not to mention the fact that the images (if shot by the state) would be in the public domain.
Beyond the benefit of making the public conscious of the fact that we do practice capital punishment, broadcasting would also demonstrate that executions aren't the pleasant sterile controlled things we think they are.. catheters fail, machines malfunction, veins collapse or 'explode', bodies jolt, bodies evacuate themselves, etc.
@tolynette,
Never thought of that. Parent identity... yeah, I don't know. That would be an incredible invasion of privacy, that in itself is the crux of roe v wade argument... the state funding element really turns it on its head. Good food for thought.
If it's not obvious, I'm opposed to the death penalty. All moral arguments aside, my primary reason is that we don't understand neurology well enough yet to say that these indebted criminals are of no use to society. Truly heinous criminals have a wealth of research data in their brains, and we don't have the technology yet to decipher it all, but its probably not far off. It'd be a shame if in 15-20 years, we can incredible technology for deciphering neurology and genetics, but had executed the test subjects. There might really be a gene or an identifiable neurological condition that heavily predisposes people to serial killing or serial rape. It'd be a shame if the day we identify it was delayed by three of four decades, because we'd chosen to execute all the test subjects decades earlier.
Come on, America! Let’s get real, for once. Our criminal justice system is a festival for our sadistic pleasure. This is an excellent idea. It would put a mirror right in front of our real selves. TV already feeds our desire for the vicarious thrill we get from the destruction of stuff, and brutality to others.
They were honest about it in the middle ages, with family picnics at public burnings, whippings, hangings, etc.
We are not any more civilized, just more dishonest about the thrill we as a society get from punishing, and especially executing, our brothers and sisters.