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