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.