Do They Really Owe Us Their Lives?

So, to clarify with readers, that last post was not intended to be a history lecture. Instead, I was trying to show how different culture groups had different ideologies about the death penalty and use it to transform their society.  The different use of the death penalty has really opened up my eyes to varying forms and interpretations of "social justice" and its impact on group behaviour.  The Apaches used capital punishment as a means to restore their society.   The French, on the other hand, wanted a new society all together, and used the death penalty to cleanse themselves of the old society. Justice, to the Apache, was served when the community, the offender and the family/friends of the offender became at peace with the crime that has been committed and the consequences of it. The French saw that justice was being served when the root evil of the aristocracy and monarchy was ripped out and planted in it place a new society. My exploration of this topic is to answer one of the questions I had when I first started the blog:  how do different cultural groups view capital punishments and how do these view impact on their social behaviour.  In my research, I have found useful the the journal, "Punishment and Society" which includes several essays exploring the concept of capital punishment as a means of achieving a just society and the behavioural and moral consequences of this use  (from which I cited in my last two posts) and published by Sage Publications.   I was able to sufficiently to analyse this topic from an anthropological point of view. There is a clear difference between the two culture groups, how they viewed the death penalty and how they may or may not have used it to serve justice.



There are many questions regarding the use of capital punishment which occupy social scientists.  One of which is: does the execution of people cut the homicidal rate in our society? Agents of socialization such as the media, religion or even family all  significantly impact on our opinions of the death penalty. In this post, I will briefly state why these agents of socialization make an impact on one's opinion on capital punishment.

Media has a HUGE effect on people, especially their thoughts and tendencies. A lot of the times, the media dramatizes stories to attract the reader's attention.  The emotional appeal rather than deductive logic of an article or news broadcast cannot be underestimated in its ability to influence its audience. The media often plays up the emotional connection to a victim's family with details about the victim, his/her life.  This can predispose the audience to greater support for the death penalty -- especially when the victim are children.

Religion can shape one's opinions of capital punishment. The Old Testament calls for an "eye for an eye".   Crudely translated this could be seen as calling for a death to compensate for a death.  Often this has led to the justification of wars to retaliate for perceived wrong.

Family also deeply influences a person's views on the death penalty. Of course at its most basic, the kin group of an offender will obviously not want them to be executed. However, the kin group of the victim will most certainly want justice to be served and in their views this justice can only be served by the death of the perpetrator. Clearly, your relation to either the criminal and victim affects your view on whether the death penalty should be implemented. What about family values? A family's religion (as stated before) can affect an individual's view on capital punishment.  Family values regarding justice and morality will also impact on how individuals perceive the use of the death penalty.


A man named Ronald Post was sentenced to the death penalty in 1983 because he murdered a woman, just after he attempted robbery. He was 53 years old when he was sentenced to death row in Ohio.  However, now he, his family and his lawyers are claiming it would be inhumane to execute him due to his size. Yes, his size. Apparently, Post is too obese to be executed in a humane way.  His lawyers claim he would suffer tremendous unjustifiable  pain. The son of the woman he killed is quoted as saying: "It's just another way for a coward to try and get out of what debt he owes to society." A debt he owes to society? Do you think this is the purpose of the death penalty?  Is it to do penance for a crime and in some way restore it?   What is interesting is the point of view that is being used by the lawyers.  They are seeking an argument of "humane treatment".  In western society, our concept of justice has evolved to embrace the perspective of not necessarily "fair" or "just" but "humane".  From a sociological point of view, how can this argument be made?

Work Cited:

Death Row. Inmate seeks parole in innocence claim unrelated to weight. (2012, December, 7-9) The Associated Press. (Pg. 14)

Gray, James. "Facing the Facts on Death Penalty".California: Digital Commons at Loyola Law School, 2011. Pg 255-258. Web.