Last week, Arkansas, which had not carried out executions since 2005, put to death Ledell Lee for the crime of murdering Debra Reese in 1993. Why now — 11 years after the last execution, 24 years after the crime? It was because the chemicals used for lethal injection were about to expire.
Reasonable people can disagree on the death penalty, but everyone should recognize the dark absurdity of an execution timetable set by a drug’s expiration date.
That absurdity provides a useful opening for an entry in my ongoing series of implausible proposals: Our modern way of punishment should be reconsidered and punishments long dismissed as inhumane should be pondered as alternatives to medicalized executions and “civilized” incarceration.
That phrasing sounds too reasonable for the spirit of this series, so here is the more outrageous version: Bring back the stocks and the firing squad.
The tendency in modern criminal justice has been to remove two specific elements from the state’s justice: spectacle and pain.
During the 19th and early 20th centuries, pillories and stocks and whipping posts became museum pieces, the hangman and the firing squad were supplanted by more technical methods and punishment became something that happened elsewhere — in distant prisons and execution chambers, under professional supervision, far from the baying crowd.
All of this made a certain moral sense. However, the civilizing process did not do away with cruelty and in some ways it could exacerbate it. With executions, the science was often inexact and the application difficult, and when it went wrong, the electric chair or the gas chamber could easily become a distinctive kind of torture.
During the last century lethal injection, now the execution method of choice, had a higher “botch rate” by far than every other means of killing the condemned. Meanwhile, the lowest rate of failure — albeit out of a small sample size — belonged to that old standby: the firing squad.
Few prisoners face execution and anti-death penalty advocates might yet reduce that number to zero. However, botched injections are not the only ways in which we pile cruelties on the condemned.
The US prison system, which officially only punishes by restraint, actually subjects millions of Americans to waves of informal physical abuse — mistreatment by guards, violence from inmates, the tortures of solitary confinement, the trauma of rape — on top of their formal years-long sentences.
It is not clear that this method of dealing with crime succeeds at avoiding cruel and unusual punishment so much as it avoids making anyone outside the prison system see it. Nor is it clear that a different system, with a different and sometimes more old-fashioned set of penalties, would necessarily be more inhumane.
This is the — deliberately provocative — argument of Peter Salib, a judicial clerk on the 7th Circuit, in his new paper, Why Prison? An Economic Critique.
Salib’s claim is radical.
“We should not imprison people who commit crimes,” he wrote.
Instead, we should force criminals to work, under monitoring, in the highest-value available jobs in order to make financial restitution, while adding additional deterrence in the form of “nonmonetary sanctions.”
“This paper does not endorse any particular nonmonetary sanction,” Salib wrote, but added that “history presents a startling array of options, including: flogging, pillory, running the gauntlope, tarring and feathering, branding and many more.”
The idea that a combination of financial sanctions and corporal punishment could replace imprisonment seems insane, even to a columnist floating slightly crazy ideas.
There will always be a group of offenders sufficiently dangerous to require long-term separation from society. In addition, most US prisoners, contrary to certain convenient myths, are not nonviolent offenders; they have been convicted of robbery, assault, rape and murder.
However, not every violent offender is equally dangerous — a fact already reflected in sentencing, which releases many prisoners relatively swiftly. So there would be room to experiment with Salib’s proposal, to offer some of the convicted the stocks followed by supervised labor, without leaping to the abolish-prison stage.
I recognize — and Salib acknowledges — a strong historical reason not to conduct such an experiment: because of the memory of slavery, the role that public violence played in maintaining racial hierarchy and the fear of resurrecting that violence in a country whose prison population is still disproportionately black.
This argument is powerful, but I wonder if it is not a little self-deceiving. I would rather face the firing squad than be strapped down and get injected into eternity, and I would choose a strong dose of pain and shame over years under the thumb of guards and inmates and the state.
We tell ourselves that we have prisoners’ good in mind and the higher standards of our civilization, because we do not offer them this choice.
However, those standards might be less about preventing ourselves from becoming like our sinful ancestors, and more about maintaining the illusion of clean hands — while harsh punishment is still imposed, but out of sight, on souls and bodies not our own.
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China