Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 5, 2004)
Opinion The Battalion ■■■■ Page 5 • Monday, July 5, 2004 An inhumane death Executions by lethal injection cause unwarranted pain for convicted felons ition. >d3-2 k;do iced tom nent gust )r Da Car: 1st to S45t' $1 I97W •0351 rs- +i/i T he comedian Ron White has elicited many laughs with his comments about Texas and the death penalty. In a show often replayed on Comedy Central, White said, “Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty; my state is putting in an express lane.” Although it is probably true that the vast majority of Texans support the death penalty, there are many who are fighting tirelessly to abolish its use. The public should not ignore these people’s works and efforts; their cause must be recognized, understood and ultimately commended. In recent months, the inhumanity of the lethal injection method of execution, the method used in Texas, has been called into question. On June 29, U. S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore granted David Ray Harris a reprieve, citing evidence that lethal injection causes the person being executed to feel intense, agonizing pain. The Texas attorney general’s office appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which vacated the reprieve Wednesday afternoon. At 6:48 p.m., just one day after receiving the reprieve, David Ray Harris was pronounced dead. Most people, including those who have witnessed an execution, probably never call into question the pain caused by lethal injection. After all, on the surface it looks perfectly peaceful. The Houston Chronicle reported that Melissa Mays Davis, the sister of Mark Mays who was murdered by Harris, said she thought the execution was peaceful and humane. Herein lies the deception. According to the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, the first drug that is used is sodium thiopental, which causes the inmate to fall asleep. The second drug, pancuronium bromide, is a muscle relaxer. It caus es paralysis of the diaphragm and lungs, essential ly strangling the inmate and preventing him from breathing. The third and final drug, potassium chloride, stops the heart and kills the inmate. Judge Gilmore, who originally issued Harris the delay, argued that this amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. What really makes lethal injection so horrible is that it masks from the public the pain that it causes. Old methods of execution such as the electric chair, fir- In addition to the normal things felt by those undergoing lethal injection, there have been several cases where the inmate has suffered squads, hangings and behead ings have been almost completely abandoned in the country due to people eventually realizing their inherent cruelty. abnor- m a 1 amount of pain. This includes Stephen McCoy, whose reaction caused others in the room to faint, and Justin Lee May who, according to Associated Press reporter Michael Graczyk, would have “lifted his head from the death chamber gurney and would have arched his back if he had not been belted down” due to his coughing spasms, groaning and gasping. Using lethal injection as a method of execution must be addressed. The evidence for its inhuman ity is too much for a serious, rational person to blindly reject. Ultimately, all of the questions regarding a “humane” method of executions are irrelevant and the debate is absurd; there is no humane way to kill a human being regardless of whether he is young, old,* innocent, guilty, in the womb or mentally retard ed. The only time killing another human is ever justified is in pure self-defense. Supporters of the death penalty often make the proposition that killing inmates is a way to keep them from murdering again, and is essen tially society’s method of self- defense. Although there might be cases in which this is true, especially in regards to terror ism, this is extremely rare in modern America. The vast majority of executions are nothing more than a thirst for vengeance. Harris is perhaps best known for his false testimony that sent an inno cent man to death row, who came within three days of execution in 1979. The reality of having the death penalty is that innocent people have been and will continue to be put to death. There are a couple questions that all Texans and Americans must answer. First, how many innocent people are we willing to sacrifice in the name of “justice?” And second, for those who are rightly convicted and sentenced to death, is there any truly humane way to kill them? You decide. Cody Sain is a junior philosophy major. Graphic by Ivan Flores $32;- l.onD; iitift , ava ! : ed* $36;' Terror suspects must undergo trials despite administration opposition 2/2 ta Jack! /tar* t-799i e nee avail! JONATHAN SMITH W orld War II is often r e m e m - bered as a time of great heroism and courage. Yet for the 120,000 Japanese- Americans who were forced into relocation camps by an executive order from former President Roosevelt, World War II was a time when some lost what American sol diers fought the enemy to preserve: Freedom. This relocation policy has been a sore spot in American history, which is the reason America offered reparations to survivors in 1988 during Reagan’s administration. It is surprising then that the Bush administration backed a similar policy in the War on Terror by detaining nearly 600 suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba short ly after 9-11. The administration has refused these detainees’ due process for the last three years. Since some of the detainees are U.S. citizens, many have contended that the administration violated the Sixth Amendment, which states: “In all crim inal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” The administration has claimed that the detainees are not being held on sov ereign U.S. soil, and therefore they are not within the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Yet, it was the policy of the Bush admin istration to forcibly place these prisoners where the courts could not reach. To solve this constitutional disagree ment, the Supreme Court stepped in to set the record straight. On June 28, the Court ruled that the terror suspects were able to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. Experts suspect that hundreds of new appeals will be presented to U.S. courts on behalf of the terror suspects. This ruling opened a proud new chap ter in the history of the Supreme Court. The Court reversed the wrongs done dur ing World War II in the Korematsu v. United States case where the Court gave the Roosevelt administration permission to detain any person deemed harmful to the United States in the time of war. This ruling is the largest setback for the Bush administration’s war on terror. CNN reports that to comply with the rul ing, the administration has set up a three- person panel of U.S. military officers that will begin to review the cases of the detainees. Appeals to U.S. courts will determine if this solution is permissible in light of the new ruling. By forcing the Bush administration to give the detainees a trial, the Supreme Court affirmed that the judi cial system could not be avoided at the whim of a president. “The president now has to act with the understanding that the court won't simply bow down in deference to any procedure he sets up,” said David Cole, a Georgetown law pro fessor and lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that the Pentagon might release some Guantanamo Bay detainees instead of giving them access to civilian courts. The fact that the Bush administration now hints at releasing some of the detainees without having them go through the aforementioned review process is an indication that some of the terror suspects were probably held with out enough evidence to punish them in a court of law. Knowing the administration’s policies toward preemptive action, it is not surpris ing that Bush wished to detain suspects that were not officially criminals. The court system does not consider pre-crime to be a punishable offense, so the administration’s efforts to dodge the court system shows a deep disrespect for the method of justice that we have in this country. If we destroy the Constitution to save America, we have not saved anything. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that a state of war was “Not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens.” If presidents are allowed to hold Americans based on them being a loosely defined threat to America, nothing prevents future administrations from detaining those who hold views contrary to their official policy. As Americans spread democracy to places across the world, they must make sure that the foundation of America’s republic is secure. The bipartisan ruling shows America that the judicial system is one branch of government that works across party lines to secure American’s freedoms. If the U.S. court system is found to be lacking in its ability to remove harm ful people from society as a whole, there is no possible way for America to exist in the form it was intended to. What the Bush administration must learn is that the U.S. court system will continue to work towards making America a safer place. A government that can easily rid itself of hypocrisy can better reflect the will of the people. This balance of power has been the backbone of the American gov ernment, and is the primary reason our freedoms have been secured for so long. Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” In this case, any administra tion that ignores freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to fight the war on ter rorists helps the terrorists destroy the most important ideal on which America was founded: Liberty. Jonathan Smith is a junior history major. MAIL CALL Remembering freedom As Americans celebrate the day of their country's independence and give thanks for the justice and freedom this great country offers, it is like wise important to remember those who do not enjoy such liberties. Since war began in Sudan in 1983, more than two million Sudanese have died, three million have been displaced and half a million left as refugees. Raids by the Janjaweed militia led to the burning and looting of villages and the murder, rape and enslavement of villagers. While the fighting earned recognition as the world’s worst humanitari an crisis by the United Nations, little has been done to help the Sudanese people. Aid agencies have yet to gain full access to the country’s people and if delayed further, Andrew Natsios from the U. S. Agency for International Development warns another million Sudanese could die. Recent visits to the country by Colin Powell and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan represent a symbolic step in the right direction, but without concrete action, the Sudanese crisis will claim countless more lives. The world cannot afford another Rwanda. The world must never again watch in silence as innocent lives are murdered. Beth Stierman Class of 2007 Violence cannot be blamed on Islam In response to Nicholas Davis’ June30 column: After reading Mr. Davis's recent article "Intolerance is the answer" I was very disturbed. What bothered me wasn't in the facts, though, it was in his interpretation of the facts. Despite the fact that the terrible murders are being carried out by extremist terrorists it is folly to con clude that these actions are representative of Muslims as a whole. The problem is that you don't hear news reports of peaceful Muslims. You see angry Arabs on TV protesting America and militant fundamentalists killing people but how often do you see shots of Muslims praying for peace? The fact that something is not on the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen and the fact that something is on the news doesn't mean it's indicative of the majority opinion. Your declaration that the religion of Islam itself is not peaceful also bothered me. Have you read the Bible? I assure you that for every vio lent passage in the Quran there is a similarly violent passage in the Bible. For example, Deut. 17:2-7 commands the people at the time to stone to death anyone who worships a different god. Does that sound like a religion of peace? Ask the Christians in Yelwa, Nigeria who recently massacred as many as 600 Muslims. The problems in the Middle East are not caused by religion alone. They are a result of complex socioeconomic forces and a general insta bility. People may use their religion as a justification for the atrocities they commit, but religion itself is not the cause. Adam Kemp Class of 2005 The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or less and include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net
