Some thoughts on executions

In the past year, there has been much debate on the appropriateness of executing a particular dictator. After reading articles and listening to heated conversations, writing a draft blog, thinking about the issue some more, forgetting about it for a while, then re-discovering the draft blog, I'm finally weighing in... but only on the general issue of the death penalty. And I warn you now, I don't have an answer. I'm not sure there is one. That said, I have three points to make.

The first point is that broadcasting executions seems dehumanizing. (Is it a pay-per-view event in Texas yet? I've heard rumours....) Broadcasting may be offered to give closure to a person's victims and their families, but I'm not convinced it's actually all that psychologically healthy. And for the rest of us.... It feeds our darker nature. Gloating over death, anyone's death, dehumanizes us and scratches away just a little more at our veneer of civilization.

My second point relates to the finality of the death penalty. The recently executed dictator was obviously the "right guy." There was no possibility of mistaken identity (we hope... anyone know if he had a twin brother, or a cousin who closely resembled him?) and no chance of having convicted an innocent man. But in regular criminal proceedings, the judicial system is not infallible. With the advent of DNA evidence we are learning that a shocking number of imprisoned individuals were actually not guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. So we let them out of jail, we give them money, we say "oops... sorry... it was an honest mistake... I mean, you LOOKED psychotic...", and they go on their merry way, their life destroyed, but still... they're ALIVE. You can't take back a death. You can't say "oops," pay a corpse some money, and set it free.

Well, you could... but it'd be messy. (Albeit providing job security for the perky blond cheerleader hanging out in cemeteries waiting to slay the undead.)

And yet... there's my third point. This comes from a conversation with a friend of mine, and proponents of the death penalty in the States have said the same thing: what about the cost of keeping someone alive and in prison. Consider the case of Rudolf Hess. He was the last imprisoned Nazi officer, and for over 20 years was the sole occupant of the Spandau prison (see www.answers.com/topic/rudolf-hess, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hess, and www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965331-1,00.html), at the cost of $1 million per year. He spent approximately 20 years prior being one of many Nazi officials held in the same prison, and one imagines it cost at least $1 million a year to house all of them during that time. But assume it cost $1 million a year for Hess alone. That is over $40 million dollars.

I cannot estimate what Hussein's lifespan would have been, nor do I know what the financial costs would have been, given that he wasn't likely to receive more than very basic care and accomodations. But who would have paid for this incarceration? The "buck" of responsibility for the decision of whether or not to execute him was Iraq's. Should Iraq then have had to pay to lock Hussein up until his death by natural causes? Could we not think of a better use for this money? The Iraqi people are going to spend decades putting their country back together after the bloodbath that has been unleashed. I think that if people had wanted Hussein not to be executed, then they should have ponied up for the incarceration fees.

Hey, Colbert, a new word for "The Word"!

If one country uses military rule to force another country to become a democracy, can they truly be making a democracy? Or is it not, instead, just another form of dictatorship? A dicocracy, so to speak... and yes, pronounced just as you think it is... 'cause if you've got one, you're pretty well shafted....

Do you think if the Iraqi people held a vote and decided that the US troops should pull out immediately, that Bush would comply with the results of that democratic process?

And in other news...

Taken from www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/070105/K010511AU.html
"WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. army said Friday it would apologize to the families of about 275 officers killed or wounded in action who were mistakenly sent letters urging them to return to active duty.
The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 army officers who had recently left the service. Included were letters to about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action."
...
"the army is apologizing to those officers and families affected and "regrets any confusion.""

CONFUSION?!?!? The loss of loved ones is perhaps most keenly felt at holidays, and I can only imagine the mixed and turbulent feelings experienced by wounded soldiers who have returned home. My prayers and sympathy go to all, and especially to those whose pain was exacerbated by this beaurocratic stupidity.

This blog is written completely based on my emotional reaction. I should probably have done research on the recruitment statistics for the US military, the reasons for decreased voluntary enlistment (assuming there is some), and the reasons behind the recent drive for re-enlistments. Instead, I'm basing my emotional reaction on what I know about the experiences of Vietnam vets, what I perceive as a parallel general belief that the current war, too, is wrong, and extrapolating assumptions of what our current returning soldiers are experiencing based on what returning Vietnam vets experienced. That said, a small suggestions to the US military officials: I'm willing to bet that ex-soldiers are aware of the military's continued need for officers. I imagine that if they've left, they wanted to go. Leave them alone; they've done their duty. If you are having problems getting recruits, look at the causes you're asking people to die for.

Unless, that is, you want to change your recruitment slogan to something like, "don't make another innocent American go through the soul-changing experiences you went thru... re-enlist, and protect another civilian from becoming a soldier. It's too late for you, but it's not to late for them." Recruitment-by-guilt... could work....