Friday, November 2, 2007

Analyzing the Issue

The changes in the reasoning behind punishment have influenced how we have punished law-breakers throughout history. When punishment was used mainly as a means to seek revenge, the methods were much bloodier and violent. This is not to say that the justice systems were barbaric and disorganized. Some of the bloodiest and most violent punishments were issued under structured legal systems. For example, Vlad the Impaler, who ruled Wallachia, Romania, in the 1400s, employed the cruelest techniques imaginable. The most famous of these punishments was impalement, which is the plunging of a stake through the whole body. His infamous punishments kept the crime rates of Wallachia so low that a gold cup left in the street overnight would allegedly remain in the same spot. People were afraid of his extreme physical punishments, so the threat of physical pain was extremely effective in deterring crime. Ancient Rome is also infamous for its violent practices in punishment. The Coliseum hosted the violent deaths of criminals for the entertainment of the public. In both these examples of violent punishments, we can see how the purpose is not solely to avenge victims, but punishment also served the purpose of preventing further crime. Even though the practices of punishment were violent beyond our imagination now, we cannot consider them barbaric and uncivilized.

In our modern society, we like to view our own punishment techniques as civilized, but let us examine the truths of this assumption. In an article published by the Chicago Bar Association Record, Chris Fisher makes the bold proposition that the guillotine is a less cruel and unusual, and therefore more humane, method of execution than lethal injection. He argues that the guillotine provides a swifter form of execution that serves its purpose well. On the other hand, lethal injection is a slower dying process, and is not as humane as people might think. Not all lethal injection executions have been free of pain or trouble. On July 18, 2006, Tommie J Smith suffered 69 minutes before he was pronounced dead. There can often be complications such as trouble finding the vein. Just because the method is more scientific does not make it a better punishment.

The forms of punishment have become more psychological and less violent, so we'd like to think that we have evolved. Instead of punishing through whipping and flogging, America operates on the prison system. Some people may feel that this is actually unjust and inhumane because the psychological torture that comes from being locked in a prison cell could be seen as a form of slavery. Some people even go as far to arguing for the abolition of prisons. However, the general public in America assumes that prison is far more humane than corporal punishment. There is an embedded idea in our heads that corporal punishment is evil, but we should consider other perspectives. The body may heal from corporal punishment, but the soul may never completely heal from the psychological damage of imprisonment. The 8th amendment protects Americans from "cruel and unusual punishment", but what exactly does this mean? The definition can be cloudy, and in the right context, imprisonment can be seen as cruel and unusual.

As I mentioned earlier, aside from changes in the methods of punishment, the purposes for which we punish have also changed. For example, if we look at the cases presented in The Death of Innocents by Sister Helen Prejean, we can see how the justice system seems skewed and does not seem to seek true justice at all. The two men in the book, whose innocence Prejean argues for, were unfairly tried and not given proper means to defend themselves against a system that wanted justice only in the sense of finding a scapegoat. People did not seek justice in society to prevent further harm or to help the criminals. This is also true in the case presented in Paradise Lost, where the people of West Memphis only wanted to find a scapegoat to blame the crimes on. It does not seem to matter to people whether the convicted actually committed the crime; they only want to appease their own anger. By sentencing someone that is likely to have committed the crime, they feel comfortable in the fact that they have punished someone.

This approach seems to be purely retributive, but it comes with the disguise of improving society. Has our judicial system become hypocritical? I mentioned in my implications post that our punishment system has shifted from the physical to the psychological, and from a retributive purpose to a desire to improve society. However, it seems that we are still operating under a retributive desire for revenge, except now we have evolved to a point where we mask this purpose with a motive to better society. Is this a turn for the worse?

6 comments:

Jan said...

I feel that this is definitely a turn for the worse, as we are not being up front about why we are putting people to death. I would rather it be made obvious that we as a society feel the need to make sure a death doesn't go unavenged rather then killing innocent people under false pretenses. Your analysis is very insightful in that your realization that our justice system isn't as upstanding as it may seem promotes the questioning of systems in place in our society. Only through such questioning can we better such systems and promote equality for all people.

Madison said...

I think that this is without a doubt a turn for the worst. Trying to hide revenge with reasons that will better society is a sick thing to do. I think that we should be honest with ourselves and not disguise our anger. This post is provactive because I have never thought of this before and think that it is a good issue that you raise. Perhaps it is truly all we are trying to do. I do not like to think that we are such horrible people, however all the facts prove that our capital punishment process is filled with injustice and bias, not equality.

C. Ronaldo said...

I feel that it is a turn for the worst. I think that we as a society are often to quick to judge people and lay down punishment far to quickly. Yet I understand why some families want just to be carried out when thye think the evidence points to those people. I feel though that it is the jury's responsibility to try and be objective as possible so we do not convict the wrong person. What are your ideas on the origin of punishment for people?

annadele said...

I think that for the victim's families, modern day sentencing is retribution but for the jurors and others trying the case, it's just about preventing future harm to others but it isn't personal.
The evolution of our justice system is really interesting to follow. When you think about it, society itself has really evolved ethically as we have to struggle less for survival. When finding food was an issue, we cared only for ourselves, then we began to care for our families, and then branches out until now we care if animals are harmed or and even retribution for crimes against the environment.

It's amazing how even ethics can be linked to the evolutionary process.

Imran said...

I think that punishment for retribution's sake can not continue. Nothing can reverse the crime that has been committed. Killing the alleged murderer of your family does not really solve any problems. While it may soothe the people around the victim that is only temporary. We need to focus on proper punishment and possible rehabilitation. It is also a travesty that revenge is being masqueraded as justice. I do think that the main problem here is that revenge is a motivation behind sentencing, more than the fact that it is being covered up.

Haley said...

It seems that our justice system has tried to blind the public instead of keeping their eyes blind in order to offer fair and just punishment to the guilty. I feel as if they are almost trying to make points to the public with these cases like the Robin Hood Hills, by proving to the society that justice will be served, however when the public was let in on the case it seemed like a pure mockery of our intelligence. We as a society want JUSTICE...justice of the truly guilty. Not for revenge, not just to falsely make our society feel more safe. It is in society where we cast judgments and let our emotions get the best of us, it is in the courtrooms where the slate is to be cleaned and only then with the evidence presented are we suppose to make judgments. I think your analysis was very eye opening...not only with how our justice is being run, but how we as a society are letting it be run.