Cruel and Unusual? Who Cares?

I oppose the death penalty in all cases. There, that's out of the way. Readers can stop searching for "liberal" bias or hidden agenda. The purpose here is not to drag out my various convincing (to me anyway) arguments against legally killing other people but, rather, to gain some insight into a perplexing issue that has come to the fore as various states search for ways to legally murder citizens without, it appears, causing them any "undue" distress. More specifically, here's my question. Why, if someone has been determined to have no value as a human being, do we care whether or not he dies painlessly or in great distress. I just don't get it.

In order to justify the killing of another human being without falling prey to accusations of murder, one must offer convincing proof that the target of one's vengeance is without redeeming merit as a human being. If the target is found to be posessed of human worth, then charges of murder could surely gain traction and derail attempts to kill. Scary as this ability to dehumanize seems to me, a majority of the American people are able to convince themselves (and others) that certain crimes are so heinous in their brutality and or cruelty that they render the perpetrator, quite literally, inhuman.

With me so far? We are executing only those from whom we have stripped the most basic elements of humanity -- including the right to remain alive. Why, then is there any concern about the pain these beings suffer when they are put down? Surely, advocates of "kind" lethal injections are not arguing that Constitutional freedoms and rights apply to individual beings from whom even the right to keep breathing has been removed. If that is the case, then what about voting rights, free speech, gun ownership and all the other rights enshrined in our Consitution? Why, if an individual is condemned to be killed are his other, less essential rights preserved? It makes no sense whatsoever. Unless . . .

What if the condemned is not, in fact, inhuman? What if he still has enough value as a member of the species to be deserving of Consitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishmment? Well, then, what about his most basic right -- that which prevents others, no matter how justified they may feel or how much anger they may exhibit, from killing him? Hmm . . . but that would draw the entire issue of execution into question. That, dear reader, is my point.

Those who support the death penalty and at the same time support the condemned's right to constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment are in an unteneble position. To avoid legitimate accusations that execution is murder, the executioners must strip the condemned of all rights and human worth, up to and including the ultimate right - the right to live. Once so stripped, continued concern about the rights of the condemned becomes moot. If one has no rights (as evidenced by the fact that one's death is about to be caused with government sanction) one has no rights (such as that which protects from cruel and unusual punishment.)

So, where does this leave the argument. Opponents of the death penalty may be pleased with a view that continued Constituional protection from cruel and unusual punishment trumps execution and, therefore, will continue to press for abolition. On the other hand, they may fear that in the current political climate, this arguemtn is simply an opening for additional excesses in the disposition of death row prisoners.

With luck, proponents of the death penalty will at least stop and consider the conundrum. If its not human, it doesn't deserve rights. If he is human, then to kill him is murder. It can't be both. There is always hope that humanity will prevail.