The Death Penalty

[joseph parikian]

The life and times of...

'You will be taken from the courthouse...'

Sigmund Siignatuur

 

 

So open the lines of a judgement of the death penalty bestowed upon Gunter Eritz Podola, who was the last man to be hung in Britain in the early 1960s for the murder of a policeman, and on Ruth Ellis, who was hung in the mid-50s for the murder of her lover. The judges (while passing sentence) would have worn a black piece of cloth over their wigs, and the home secretary would have been the final arbiter on whether to show clemency or not to the convicted criminals. By the time the death penalty was applied in Britain at this stage, killing was the only crime that carried the death penalty. It was not always like this.

Killing people for superficial crimes was rampant in the 18th century. All sorts of minor crimes could carry the death penalty. For example, trying to catch a rabbit from a rabbit hole and felling a tree illegally could result in the death penalty. (I owe some credit to KT who lives in Amman for some of the information — but I hasten to add that she is not an executioner). Whether being hung was preferable to being sent to Australia as a convict at this stage of the development of that continent is a moot point.

 

I would like to say that we have become more humane about official killings and incarceration of prisoners, but I know that an awful lot of aberrations could be thrown at me, particularly as news breaks about the conditions of Iraqi prisoners.

 

However, some ghastly ways of disposing of people have disappeared. They are ghastly because they take a long time for the death of the person and they are agonising (presumably why they were preferred). Crucifixion, being set alight and beheading were not common, though beheading may be swift, depending on the sharpness of the sword and the accuracy of the beheader. Saudi Arabia still beheads and a few countries use limb amputation as a deterrent. Stoning to death is not common and the last time this might have taken place was in Nigeria. Most of the world held its breath and the decision was overturned.

 

One of the strangest forms of logic to decide the fate of a crime was carried out in Britain during the time of the witchfinder general. They were the McCarthyites of witches. They were determined to purge the nation of witchcraft. Wobetide any woman who lived alone and owned a black cat and swept her cottage everyday. If they suspected you of witchcraft, there were ways you could be proclaimed a witch. The authorities could ask you to hold a piece of red hot metal in your hands and if this burnt, then you were a witch. Equally appealing as a scientific approach was that they would tie a woman to a stool and place here under water. After some time (by then she would have drowned) they would bring her to the surface and pronounce her dead and a witch. If she had not been a witch she would not have drowned. Not exactly the age of enlightenment.

 

Most forms of execution now are rapid, e.g., hanging, injection, shooting and the electric chair, although I have read reports that the latter can be rather grisly, as the prisoner sometimes fries.

 

My informant tells me that around 2,000 people are legally executed a year and roughly four nations are responsible for over 80 per cent of such executions. Not all executions are for killings. Espionage, running the black market, sexual infidelity are among crimes that are non involved with killing. China, for example, in the late 1990s, executed approximately 60 people a year for tax evasion (presumably of a vast some of money). Of course, this figure may be the tip of the iceberg. In more tyrannical regimes, people are executed without a fair trial and their remains are buried and all traces of their life die with them, along with their torturers' cigarette end burns.

 

Many countries still retain the official death penalty. Apart from Russia, no other European country now imposes the death penalty. In the EU, the laws are often supranational, rather than being left to individual state members, though I know of no dissent on this issue. The US has death in some states and not in others, and the means of death differ from one state to another. Israel has no death penalty, but passed a law in 1960, that the mass murderer of Jews in the Nazi death camps, Adolf Eichmann, should be executed.

 

Most countries recognise that killings come in many forms. An accidental death cannot be equated with a serial killer. A passionate crime is not the same as a calculated crime. Ellis (mentioned earlier) could have escaped the hangman's noose if she had announced to the court that she killed David Blakely in a fit of rage — which she refused to do. At a later age, a woman called Sarah Thornton had enough of being physically abused by her drunken slob of a husband. When he was asleep on the couch, she took a sharp French kitchen knife and dispatched him to another world. She received a lengthy prison sentence on the basis that it was premeditated. Thankfully, the verdict was overturned.

 

What are the issues at stake in the perennial argument of kill or imprison? Some people just believe that the slaughter (under certain circumstances) should result in the killer receiving the same torment. Waiting for the metaphorical fingers to strangle you, while waiting in a cell, must be tormenting, which is exactly what supporters of the death penalty want, e.g., maximum pain. The existence of heaven and hell is not a universally acknowledged phenomenon. For some, the thought of the slayer perpetually being disembowelled in hell seems just. For some, the uncertainty of what lies before us after death is strewn with questions and this makes the killing an acceptable punishment for those who believe in capital punishment.

 

Another argument for capital punishment is that it is a deterrent. Statistics swing back and forth on this one. The upsurge of capital punishment in the US in recent years is presumably the result of intolerable crime levels — but it has to be kept in mind that this might be a sociological phenomenon that is very much to the fore in that country. I don't hear about this in Canada.

 

There are those who say (and with some conviction — no pun implied) that a life sentence in many liberal countries (who have the most liberal prison systems) means that a normal “run of the mill” killer will only serve around 15 years in gaol. There are very few prisoners in the West who will spend their entire life in gaol. I think that in Britain less than 30 prisoners fall into this category.

 

For those who find legal slaughter repugnant, the following reasons seem to be prevalent. There are people who believe the state is behaving in a similar way to psychopathic killers and it should set different standards. I (and this is a private opinion) do not believe that all life is that sacrosanct. Killers come in many shapes and forms and those fit to stand trial and who are sane, have taken a road that shows no mercy. Why, then, should the authorities respond with an egalitarian approach to their life?

 

One strong argument for keeping people in prison is the miscarriage of justice. In Britain, they call it an unsound conviction. My informant tells me that over 95 people have been set free from death row because it came to light that there was alternative evidence that cast doubt on executing the prisoner. In Britain, a barrister, who later became a journalist and TV personality, devoted much of his later life in trying to prove that some dead British prisoners were in fact innocent. Ludovic Kennedy set out to prove that James Hanratty and Timothy Evans, accused of killing women in bizarre circumstance were innocent. He further proved that Keith Bently should have his name cleared, which in fact happened. In the early fifties, the simple-minded Bentley, along with his accomplice Craig, were seemingly attempting to rob a ship in South London. A policeman trapped them on the roof. Bentley (who was old enough to hang) allegedly said to Craig (who had the firearm and was too young to hang) “Let him have it”. Did Bentley mean that Craig should pump the policeman's stomach with lead or did Bentley mean for Craig to hand over the weapon. Craig killed the policeman and Bentley hung. You must be the judge.

 

Just to end on a slightly more frivolous note. There was once a man about to be electrocuted. His name was George J. Apple. His last statement was: “I guess I'm about to be an apple turnover.”

 

Friday-Saturday, May 21-22, 2004

 

http:// www.jordantimes.com/fri/opinion/opinion3.htm