Both Dr. Yamey and the state of California are very confused about
torture
and the death penalty. Dr. Yamey confuses them and pretends they are the
same. This would be inexcusable were it not for the fact the State of
California (and all other US jurisdictions that execute) is also very
confused,
pretending to be oh so clinically detached and nice about it all, but
really
lusting to torment and torture the condemned.
If the state just wanted to kill the condemned, it is very easy.
Make it legal
for everyone on death row to have all the heroin and cocaine they wish and
offer them salad bowls full of it frequently. Most would be quite happy
to
oblige the state and save a lot of money on appeals no longer necessary.
Instead of publishing the cognitive writhings of Dr. Yamey, BMJ
should offer
some straight talk about what kind of public, collective psychotherapy it
will
take for death penalty jurisdictions to get over their obsession with
making it
not quite torture and either ban it or make it somewhat more humane. I
think this starts with asking people to confront the question of whether
we
are killing convicts by lethal injection because we can't skin them alive
and
roll them in salt nowadays (that is, do we really want to punish them as
much
as possible), or do we really just want them dead to protect society, in
which
case we should not care if we need to incentivize them to go along with it
by
offering pleasures and rewards.
Historically, when the use of poison gas to kill condemned prisoners
first
started they were gassed quietly in their sleep. A great uproar ensued as
they
didn't know it was coming, didn't experience fear of imminent death,
weren't
told they were going to die now for their crime, and thus weren't
"punished"
properly.
Also note the ongoing controversy about medicating insane convicts so
they
can understand why they are being executed, and it being cruel to execute
them if they don't understand. If the condemned are so deranged they
don't
even understand what is going on we won't kill them even though they are
arguably a lot more dangerous than they are in a state where they
understand
death, fear it and wish to avoid it.
Society doesn't ACT like it is euthanizing mad dogs when it conducts
executions, so that is a bad analogy. Those who want to use that analogy
ought to stop chanting it and start lobbying for prison procedures more in
line with the humane taking of life than with the idea of death as a
punishment that has to be experienced in its full horrifying enormity by
the
condemned.
Rapid Response:
Confused about the death penalty
Both Dr. Yamey and the state of California are very confused about
torture
and the death penalty. Dr. Yamey confuses them and pretends they are the
same. This would be inexcusable were it not for the fact the State of
California (and all other US jurisdictions that execute) is also very
confused,
pretending to be oh so clinically detached and nice about it all, but
really
lusting to torment and torture the condemned.
If the state just wanted to kill the condemned, it is very easy.
Make it legal
for everyone on death row to have all the heroin and cocaine they wish and
offer them salad bowls full of it frequently. Most would be quite happy
to
oblige the state and save a lot of money on appeals no longer necessary.
Instead of publishing the cognitive writhings of Dr. Yamey, BMJ
should offer
some straight talk about what kind of public, collective psychotherapy it
will
take for death penalty jurisdictions to get over their obsession with
making it
not quite torture and either ban it or make it somewhat more humane. I
think this starts with asking people to confront the question of whether
we
are killing convicts by lethal injection because we can't skin them alive
and
roll them in salt nowadays (that is, do we really want to punish them as
much
as possible), or do we really just want them dead to protect society, in
which
case we should not care if we need to incentivize them to go along with it
by
offering pleasures and rewards.
Historically, when the use of poison gas to kill condemned prisoners
first
started they were gassed quietly in their sleep. A great uproar ensued as
they
didn't know it was coming, didn't experience fear of imminent death,
weren't
told they were going to die now for their crime, and thus weren't
"punished"
properly.
Also note the ongoing controversy about medicating insane convicts so
they
can understand why they are being executed, and it being cruel to execute
them if they don't understand. If the condemned are so deranged they
don't
even understand what is going on we won't kill them even though they are
arguably a lot more dangerous than they are in a state where they
understand
death, fear it and wish to avoid it.
Society doesn't ACT like it is euthanizing mad dogs when it conducts
executions, so that is a bad analogy. Those who want to use that analogy
ought to stop chanting it and start lobbying for prison procedures more in
line with the humane taking of life than with the idea of death as a
punishment that has to be experienced in its full horrifying enormity by
the
condemned.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests