The time had come--the execution of Michael Morales, who has been on death row since 1983 for the rape and murder of a teenage girl, was scheduled for 12:01am today. But then, at the last minute, two court-appointed doctors refused to help administer the lethal injection, and the
killing justice didn't take place. It has now been postponed indefinitely.
The doctors--anesthesiologists, to be exact--objected on the grounds that if they didn't do their jobs properly, the convict might feel some pain. Oh, Heaven forbid...
Am I the only one that doesn't really see this as a bad thing ? I know the law prohibits executions from being cruel and unusual, but now we're getting way too soft. It's not like we're talking about whacking him in the head with a claw hammer 21 times until he dies in a terrified struggle. We're certainly not talking about then dragging his lifeless body through the dirt, raping the bloodied corpse, and stabbing him a few more times, just for good measure. No, doing something like that would make you a horrible monster unfit for this Earth, not a respected Justice of the Peace.
A lethal injection is a walk in the park compared to what this guy really deserves.
So I think these doctors were totally overreacting with their concerns. If we have to perform an execution in accordance with the law, it should be perfectly acceptable to do it by means of lethal injection, electric chair, or 20 continuous minutes of viewing whatever is on the Lifetime Television Network. No, strike the last one, that actually is unreasonably cruel.
Not that it's actually going to solve anything. Maybe it will relieve some burden on the overcrowded prisons, but I can't see it setting an example or anything. At first I thought that the punishment of death wasn't an adequate deterrent to crime--that something more should somehow be done. But then I realized that nothing actually will ever be adequate. The mental state of a person enraged or sick enough to take someone else's life isn't one that takes the criminal justice system into consideration. Even in countries where gruesome death sentences are carried out in the middle of town, the citizens gather and cheer the event like ruthless savages. Yet people there still commit the crimes, too.
The selection of who is eligible for the death penalty should be weighed on the nature of the crime and the person's potential value to society. Every living thing has a worth associated with it, and if your value is below a certain threshold you're a candidate for execution. Here's an example of how life could be valued, starting with most important:
- Humans that do great things for the world (The Pope, Ghandi)
- People with great achievements (Nobel Prize winners)
- Women with large breasts
- Ordinary people
- Primitive animals
- Paris Hilton
Even after all of this, I'm not entirely convinced I support capital punishment. Not really because of the moral implications of taking someone's life in retribution, but because death is a gift these people don't deserve. Death gives escape from a lifetime of remorse and consideration. How can you make someone suffer through a meaningless, worthless life of regret if he's dead ?
That's entirely assuming these convicts are capable of such emotion. The jury is still out on that one.