Originally written Friday, March 3rd, 2006
BY EDWIN COONEY
I abhor capital punishment—not for what it does to the criminal—but for what it does to the innocent! An example of what I mean took place on a local Bay Area talk show not long ago.
It was Tuesday morning, February 21st. I turned on my radio that morning to one of the most erudite talk show hosts in the profession, Ronn Owens of KGO in San Francisco, a thirty-plus year veteran of talk radio.
At one minute after midnight of the previous evening, the State of California was to have administered a lethal injection to 25 year death row inmate Michael Morales. It hadn’t happened and for a solid hour Mr. Owens and most of his callers vented their spleens.
Rightfully outraged by Morales’ subhuman crime, discussion participants displayed both anger as well as outrage-driven logic for the enlightenment of listeners, describing what ought to have been Morales’ just fate.
Host Owens expressed his ideal punishment for the convicted murderer as being death via the same method which the criminal used to kill the victim. It was also suggested that ideally the inmate--like the victim—should be left wondering when his death would occur. Thus, the death row inmate would always be “…watching his back.” The application of maximum pain during the execution process had its plentiful proponents as well.
Amidst the just and angry cries against murder on the program, the little opposition to Capital Punishment itself was very mild and almost defensive. What was even more disturbing was what WASN’T discussed: whether the reason for the delay of the execution had any merit. You can be sure that the judge who created the condition that caused the delay was labeled a Liberal, but frustrated labeling was about as far as this veteran professional talk show host was capable of to guide the discussion that morning.
The previous day, a federal judge had ruled that an anesthesiologist should be present during Morales’s execution to guard against excessive pain throughout the procedure. The presence of an anesthesiologist would satisfy the requirement against the application of “cruel and unusual punishment” under the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. Ultimately, the “fly in the ointment” was that the anesthesiologists in attendance that day refused on both legal and professional grounds to take the assignment. Thus, the execution of Morales was first postponed until one minute after seven on the evening of Tuesday, February 21st and, finally, postponed indefinitely.
An anesthesiologist is, of course, a doctor and is subject to the moral code of the Hippocratic Oath. Thus, any doctor who assists in the taking of life, under the laws of the State of California, is in violation of that oath and thus subject to punishment resulting in the permanent withdrawal of his or her license.
This reality has many fascinating scientific, medical, legal and moral implications which constitute a natural grist for any talk show’s discussion mill. Ronn Owens and his callers might have discussed the moral and ethical implications of a doctor’s participation in capital punishment; they may have talked about the method that some states use to get around the moral and legal drawbacks to doctor-assisted executions, they may even have compared the medical professional’s moral dilemma with that of the clergy. They may have discussed any and all aspects of this most fascinating situation, but they were prevented from doing so by the most deadly force ever confronted by human kind: THEIR OWN ANGER!
Almost any discussion or debate between a proponent and opponent of capital punishment features a higher degree of outrage on the part of the proponent by the very nature of the discussion. The proponent of capital punishment, after all, enters the conversation with a “solution” to one of humankind’s most despicable acts: the crime of murder. The opponent of capital punishment starts out the discussion having to justify his or her own equally heartfelt moral certainty that that “solution” is flawed. Inevitably, the opponent of capital punishment finds him or herself charged with a lack of compassion for the murdered victim and their family.
Of course, any shortened life is a tragic life. I believe that the only possible justification for destroying any human life is the immediate preservation of an innocent one who may be under attack. Beyond that there are numerous ramifications which are practical, moral, institutional, and personal.
From a practical standpoint, if the cost of saving the most innocent life from the riggers of accident and disease is more expensive than ever before, can anyone reasonably expect that the cost of saving a guilty life isn’t going to increase geometrically? No one, not even the angriest and most determined contemporary judge, politician or citizen, has found a way to administer executions both efficiently and on the cheap! Nor can anyone expect reasonably that someone on trial for their life shouldn’t be afforded the best possible defense. It should also be kept in mind that the amount of public money currently being spent to execute the most deserving criminal is subsequently unavailable to feed, educate, provide health care, improve the environment for, or increase the personal safety of any citizen. This reality is the obvious as well as the most chronic effect capital punishment has on the innocent.
From a moral standpoint, once the urgency of taking a life to prevent the loss of an innocent one has become irrelevant, usually because the victim is gone and the murderer is effectively detained, then the act of killing is stripped -- it seems to me -- of its moral fiber! Thus, killing becomes murder whether it is done by the State or by John Wilkes Booth. As for executions being essential for closure or for the “peace of mind” for the victim’s next of kin, I would ask this question: Is murder less tragic to the victim and their families when the murderer commits suicide? In other words, does the murderer’s suicide erase the horror and outrage of the crime?
From an institutional standpoint, the cost of permanently housing lifers has become miniscule in proportion to the cost of appeals. Another reality is that the number of inmates serving time for “capital murder” is less than ten per cent of the prison population.
From a personal standpoint, I don’t believe I can be accused of having any pity for murderers just because I oppose capital punishment. Michael Morales’s act of rape and murder was nothing short of being both vain and despicable. The act itself was even more despicable than the act of capital punishment, because capital punishment at least has as its purpose the “greater public good”. However, I’ve never read, even in scripture, that one sin erases another sin. I have read in scripture that life is God’s to give or take and that God is jealous of His exclusive rights. I’m sure that that reality has occurred more than once to Michael Morales during the past twenty-five years. In fact, our society might also be well-served to keep that bit of scripture in mind.
Historically, doctors have gotten involved with society to make executions more efficient as well as humane. The most dramatic example was in France. During the eighteenth century, a French physician constructed a machine that bears his name. It came out just in time for the French Revolution. Beheading via axe could be both messy and inefficient---thus Dr. Joseph Guillotin’s killing machine filled the bill with perfection.
During the 1890’s, the inventors of the electric chair demonstrated its efficiency to a session of the New York State Legislature by electrocuting a chicken. Unfortunately, history doesn’t record whether or not that distinguished body immediately adjourned to the capitol lawn for a chicken barbecue!
It is just possible that the unwillingness of some in the medical profession to take a life may put a sufficient crimp in the continued use of capital murder but, if history is any indication, such is probably not the case. In Illinois, for example, a law has been passed declaring that assisting in capital punishment is not a medical practice. Had that law been in effect in California, perhaps Michael Morales would today be history.
There may be no room for you in the neighborhood, at a school, in a hospital, on a talk show, in the dining-room, in the arms of your lover, or even at the inn. But there’s always room for you on death row!
I believe that capital punishment deserves a place for itself on death row… right next to the death chamber. The execution process for capital punishment may be long and agonizing, it may even be “cruel and unusual,” but its demise, I hope, is inevitable. I devoutly believe that the real victims of capital punishment are not our criminals, but our innocent selves.
Perhaps our greatest tragedy, even as we declare ourselves to be children of God, is that after so many centuries of experiencing the miracle of life, we really believe that we can solve our problems by killing one another!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY