Executing Justice...

Throughout my previous blogs, I have tried to explore different perspectives on capital punishment and brought forward sociological, anthropological and psychological points of views on the effects of capital punishment.  What this exploration has illustrated is the complexity of this subject and its ability to polarize at the societal and individual levels. 

Anthropologically, cultural groups throughout history have used capital punishment to achieve justice in different ways. The Apaches used the death penalty as a last resort and as the ultimate means to re-establishing equilibrium to their community. The Aztecs used capital punishment routinely and believed death of the offenders would repay the offense – the Aztec kings frequently commanded executions as personal demonstration of their divine right to rule. The French revolutionaries used Madame La Guillotine as a symbol to rid itself of an old order and to pave the way for a new society. The Victorians truly believed that the death penalty and use of capital punishment achieved fairness to all parties and it was the only "just" way to maintain moral society.  Lastly, contemporary Americans continue to believe in capital punishment as a way of achieving justice, with the reinstatement of the death penalty in a number of American states.  However, Americans also harbour a deep ambivalence towards capital punishment – leading to the long-term incarceration of inmates sentenced to a “zombie-like” existence on death row.  Inmates experience a death without its finality and certainty.

On a logical basis, can capital punishment be justified?  James Grey, in his article, “Facing the Facts on Death Penalty" ("Facing the Facts on Death Penalty".California: Digital Commons at Loyola Law School, 2011. Pg 255. Web.) cites five commonly accepted justifications for the death penalty: 

-Reducing to zero the chances that the offender will return to society

-Closure for the victim’s families/friends

-Deterrence against future violations by other offenders

-This is the appropriate punishment for the offender of such a serious crime

-Rightful societal vengeance (an eye for an eye).

I also showed in my previous blog that the first four justifications do not necessarily hold.  However, what of the issue of societal vengeance?  Can the death of an individual for a convicted crime compensate for that offense?  It has historically been used by different and varied cultural groups to re-establish order to their communities.  But does capital punishment truly achieve “justice”?  And how is “justice” defined?  I believe the concept of “justice” has evolved significantly in our society and its evolution influences our views towards the death penalty.  Victims’ families are now frequently speaking out publicly against the execution of the convicted perpetrators.  They believe that even the death of the convicted would not help them come to terms with their tragic loss nor will the execution be appropriate tributes to their loved ones’ memory.  As a society we appear to have evolved from the Aztecs, the French revolutionaries, and the Victorians.  And yet the debate continues.  As Joane Martel reflects in her article, “Remorse and the production of truth” (Punishment and Society. California: Sage Publications, 2010. Pg 43. Web) these ongoing debates on capital punishment demonstrate the “enigmatic symbiosis between law, punishment and society”.  Because of the overwhelming presence of social media, this is an issue that will not die.

While it is difficult to conclude definitively if capital punishment does achieve justice, what I have argued is how this issue documents how concepts of “justice, morality and truth” are determined by changes in society and cultural groups:  the death penalty is a sociological phenomenon.  

Work Cited:

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

Martel, Joane. "Remorse and the production of truth", Punishment & Society. California: Sage Publications, 2010. Pg 413-437. Web. 

Any Justifications?

Typically, there are five justifications for the use of the death penalty (Gray, Pg 255):

• Reducing to zero the chances that the offender will return to society 

• Closure for the victim’s families/friends 

• Deterrence against future violations by other offenders 

• This is the appropriate punishment for the offender of such a serious crime 

• Rightful societal vengeance (an eye for an eye).

This blog will demonstrate logically that these justifications are not all together sound.

With regards to reducing to zero the chances that the offender will return to society, most convicted of first degree murders have very little chance of leaving prison without demonstrating to a Parole Board that they have been rehabilitated and will not re-offend.  In this case, it can be argued that the individual is not the same person who committed the crime previously.

In California, the penalty was implemented in 1978 but they have only had 13 executions since then. They have 680 convicted offenders on death row, 112 have been there for more than 25 years, 217 have been there for more than 20 years and 546 have been there for longer than 10 years. The argument about closure is really quite invalid because if the families have to cope with 10-25 years, closure is almost irrelevant.  The psychological turmoil for the loved ones of the victim -- many years of appeals whereby families forced to relive terrible memories and details.  And the impact of the media is even more traumatic as it feeds on every new development, long after the offense committed and the conviction.

Capital punishment has been used for centuries and yet violent and horrible crimes are committed daily.  Also, if a person knows that he has committed an offense that would qualify him for the death penalty, that person tends to feel that he has nothing more to lose.  That belief in turn results in perpetrators killing witnesses to the crime to keep them from testifying against them and also killing police officers who attempt to arrest them. What happens is the opposite of the deterrence. The argument that the death penalty is a deterrence against future violations by other offenders is invalid. 

In regards to the justification of “...appropriate punishment for the offender of such a serious crime", this is very difficult to rationalize.  In many ways, serving out a life sentence without the possibility of release would be in some ways a more severe and “just” sentence for many offenders than actually being executed.  

The fifth justification is more difficult to argue against:  societal vengeance.  As I have discussed in my previous blogs, throughout history, different culture groups have used capital punishment as a demonstration of their societal views and morals.  But I have shown that the use of capital punishment has changed as society has changed.  We in North America no longer use capital punishment as did the Aztec kings to demonstrate their divine right to rule nor as the French revolutionaries to uproot a decaying social order.  Maybe it is time to re-examine the concept of “societal vengeance” with regards to our evolved understandings of “justice” and “morality”.  

Work Cited:

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

The Death Penalty Phenomenon...

It is reported that in the US a total of 1, 086 people have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Interestingly enough, in California, the penalty was implemented in 1978 but they have only had 13 executions since then. They have 680 convicted offenders on death row, 112 have been there for more than 25 years, 217 have been there for more than 20 years and 546 have been there for longer than 10 years. As you can see, the majority of inmates have been on death row for quite a long period of time. According to psychologists, it is evident that acute psychological disorders occur among the death row population. There is a pattern, among the offenders sent to death row -- similar background of poverty, mental history, dysfunctional families, violence and substance abuse. These factors can all contribute to an individual developing mental illness, either through maturational development, which is crisis induced by occurrences throughout one's life as a whole, life events and processes lead up to this crisis; or accidental situation, which is a specific situation/life event that causes crisis. The discussion in this blog post will explore the psychological impacts of being on death row and will provide another perspective on the death penalty as a means for achieving “justice”.

Tierney M. Garrison, author of Death on the Brain: The Psychological Effects of the Death Penalty Based on the Views of Those Condemned To Die found that prisoners who have developed physical and psychological oddities are exposed and ignored; almost all of them choosing new areas of study while on the death row ( learning about religion, health, games, etc). Garrison interviewed a former resident of the federal Bureau of Prisons to discuss what life was like in prison. Michael Santos was convicted for selling cocaine and sentenced to 45 years in prison. Santos claims that during his sentence he submersed himself in studies. Apparently this helped him get through the years in prison. Also, the study of literature and other similar activities was used as a relief, and often an escape from the small, dull, confined cell he had to live in. According to Santos, this was normal- - in fact many other prisoners became more interested in learning, and studying. Already there is a change in personality within the inmates. The inmates are using reading and studying as an act of escape – whereas previously they had turned to drugs and violence. Ironically, the replacement of drugs/alcohol with books is a good change that death row provides. However, death row inmates also undergo negative changes....

These images show the confined spaces
inmates have to live in

The uncertainty of execution date, the fear of death and pain, the lengthy isolation they are exposed to and possibly mistreatment on the death row can have profound impacts on inmates – these impacts are characterized as the “Death Row phenomenon” where the only certainty is the certainty of death. This behaviour illustrates the Id, Ego, Superego theories (Sigmund Freud, 1894). Hard living on death row, the anger, fear and frustration towards the courts, the legal system can be so overwhelming that an inmate may choose “repression as a form of coping” – repression being one of Freud’s classic defense mechanism. Eventually, some inmates "snap". This outbreak is called the "Death Row Syndrome". The death row syndrome is the psychological effects that can result from being exposed to the death row phenomenon. This outbreak and “snap” are caused by repressed anger, confusion and uncertainty. Because of this repression, the tension builds up over the years (inmates stay on death row for 10-25 years on average) and they “snap”. They lose control and their Id overpowers their Superego which causes this outbreak. Their Thanatos (thanotic energy) is released and most of the time they cope by using poor externalization methods (physical violence). The inmates' animalistic drive breaks out and become impulsive and violent; these drives surpass the facade shown by the Superego.

Another change in personality occurs within some inmates; they become very dependent on order and schedules. An inmate’s life-span on death row averages approximately 10 years. Because of the uncertainty of their condition, inmates look forward to and follow schedules and recreational time. Inmates tend to become nostalgic and replay moments and memories in their heads leading up to being on death row and participate more in story-telling activities. The story telling and nostalgic memories are indicators of self-pity, contrition and/or remorse. Santos indicates that prisoners become very worrisome, vulnerable and impatient. The dependency on schedules and displaying new characteristics are a clear indicator that there is definitely a personality change. The inmates become more conscientious and neurotic, according to the Big 5 Personality Traits. It is evident that living on death row can impact inmates so significantly that it results in a major personality change.

To conclude, the current implementation of capital punishment in the US has resulted in a “zombie” state for the convicted. Their life or “non-life” spent on death row (an average of 10 to 25 years) results in positive and negative changes on their personality. When examining the impact of the ‘death row syndrome”, one questions if capital punishment is the means to achieving “justice”.

Work Cited:

Garrison, Tierenney M. Death on the Brain: The Psychological Effects of the Death Penalty Based on the Views of Those Condemned To Die. Eisenhower Parkway: ProQuest LLC, 2009. Pg 1-18, 28-29. Print.

Lynch, Mona. "Capital Punishment as moral imperative", Punishment & Society. California: Sage Publications, 2002. 213-236. Print

We are not necessarily "fair" or "just" but "humane"?

According to the Oxford Dictionary, "fair" is defined as 'without cheating, or use of foul advantages, in accordance with rules and standards. The definition of "just" is "based on or behaving in regards to what is fair, or fair to the specific society/community". You can clearly see these two words converge. In fact they are synonyms to one another...however, the word "humane" is  often used with the words "fair" or "just" in issues like the death penalty but if one explores this concept further -- it is quite different from both these words.

Humane means "having or showing acts of compassion, kindness, altruistic behaviour, etc". As you can clearly see, being humane is connected to one's emotions.  Meanwhile being just or fair has to do with legal, dejure/defacto rules set by society. These social orders mold people to think what is fair, or just. Humanity is about morality.  In the case discussed in the last post ( Ronald Post Case), is it safe to say that the offender (Ronald Post) is manipulating society's empathy and "humanity" to cheat his way out of paying his debt to society? He killed a woman. According to the law he had a fair trial and was judged by a jury of peers who examined the evidence presented and base on dejure rules set by legislators sent him to death row, where he was to await execution. However, now he and his lawyers are saying that it is inhumane to kill him because the methods they use for executions are far too painful for him to withstand...BECAUSE OF HIS WEIGHT.

This angered many, many people, especially the family and friends of the woman who was killed. Right now the decision to have him executed or not is being debated.  If they were to accept his request and keep him in prison that would not be fair, nor just. Yes, it would be humane.  However, how is that "fair" when the material facts presented led the jurors to decide that Ronald Post was guilty of his crime? They are ignoring all legal and defacto policies set up in place by society -- and opting to exercise the decision to be "humane". One can say, "he killed a woman, he should die", a "life for a life" concept....that is (in some people's opinions) fair. That is one way of achieving justice-especially for the relatives and close friends of the victim.

However, would all of society see that as fair? Some people may say "you shouldn't sink down to a criminal's level and kill someone as well...Imagine what that looks like to children and other people who look up to the government for support and fair treatment"....or something along those lines. These people also have a very interesting point to. Maybe, to create justice we should banish the death penalty...does the death penalty even achieve any form of justice? According to these people, and these sets of opinions, no it does not.

According to the certain US state law, an individual who does commit such acts, should be sent to be executed. In accordance to the CURRENT dejure policies, the death penalty is fair. The definition of fair states: "... in accordance with rules and standards." Well, the law does state the death penalty should be used if one commits such acts and this is proved beyond reasonable doubt.  However, we are a compassionate society in general we seem to be unwilling to allow anyone to be executed unless all avenues of innocence have been explored and appealed.  And even after these avenues have been exhausted, there are those who disagree, using the "humane" argument.  Is it humane?  Because of the opinion I stated above ( Some people may say "you should treat terrible crimes with the right to take a life) individuals who believe this opinion is right obviously have compassion for the offender and feel like death is not the right way to solve the problem. Keyword: compassion. They clearly feel sympathy, and are emotionally affected by capital punishment.

To conclude my findings on this aspect of capital punishment, agents of socialization such as family, the government, law and media portray the death penalty as "fair", these same agents can argue that it is NOT humane. Those who stand for the death penalty are all using legal and dejure arguments to support their views.  Meanwhile those who do not  support capital punishment use compassion and emotionally appealing arguments.

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". Digital Commons at Loyola Law School. 2011.

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.

Restoration Vs. Chaos

In the previous blog post, I described different culture groups and the various methods they used capital punishment to "achieve" justice.  In today's blog, I want to explore and compare how capital punishment presented were used by two culture groups to accomplish social goals.

The Apache First Nations saw capital punishment as the ultimate means of restoring harmony with their community. Generally the Apaches would the method of short term exile to punish a transgressor. And believed that the  offender just needed to have his conscious and the conscious of their family/friends cleansed. Only for the most grievous and serious of crimes, were capital punishment used as a means for this cleansing.  What is interesting is how the Apaches viewed the goal of capital punishment.  It was used to restored equilibrium within the community and not exact penance or retribution. "An eye for an eye" did not necessarily make whole a community -- such a view of justice would seem to damage the community further.

The French Revolutionaries were very different.... They used the death penalty to rip out the roots of a decaying society and put in place a society that would be exemplified by liberty and brotherhood. Madame La Guillotine became an blood-thirsty symbol of this quest for a new society.  The revolutionaries believed that only through chaos and bloodshed, could the ideals of a new society be achieved.  In May of 1972, extreme acts of violence were committed by Parisian insurrectionists when they killed hundred of accused counter-revolutionists. Following this act, the Legislative Assembly was replaced by the National Convention, which then abolished the monarchy and proclaimed the establishment of the French Republic. On January 21, 1793 it sent King  Louis XVI to meet Madame La Guillotine along with his wife Marie-Antoinette just nine months later. It was said that there were thousands of victims of the guillotine and the pursuit of justice and a new society resulted in a reign of terror.

The two culture groups, the Apache and the French Revolutionaries, are very different in regards to how they viewed " justice" within their societies. For the Apaches, justice was the restoration of equilibrium to the community.  Meanwhile the French revolution used the death penalty to "execute"  the old order.  It is interesting how the declaration to abolish feudalism was considered "the death certificate of the old order".   The Apaches' goals was to maintain the harmony of their community and restore it to its state previous to the crime committed. However, the French wanted to blow up their society completely and used capital punishment as a means to rid the old society in preparation of the new one. You can clearly see how capital punishment and justice are multi-faceted concepts and are shaped by a cultural groups' visions of an ideal society.  And so fundamentally the challenge that still remains is whether or not capital punishment is an appropriate means of achieving justice?

Work Cited:

Knaus, William, Wagner Douglas, Draper Elizabeth. Critical Care Medicine Vol. 17. Philadelphia: The Williams and Wilkens Co., 1989. Pg 181-185, 199-203. Print

Lynch, Mona. "Capital Punishment as moral imperative", Punishment & Society. California: Sage Publications, 2002. 213-236. Print

Martel, Joane. "Remorse and the production of truth", Punishment & Society. California: Sage Publications, 2010. Pg 413-437. Web.

Stone, Bailey. Reinterpreting the French Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Pg 1-12. Print. 

How Did Various Culture Groups Use Capital Punishment?

Interestingly enough, there has been evidence to support that a number of cultures implemented the death penalty as a means of achieving different social goals. These culture groups are very diverse and different from one another ranging from the Apache First Nation, Aztecs, implementers of the French Revolution, the Victorians, and twentieth-first century American society.

The Apache First Nation’s idea of justice is based on the concept of community balance. The dominant tribe or group is in charge of taking care of the rest of the tribes and groups. They are supposed to keep away the "deviants" they believe are harmful to their society. These “deviant” individuals are punished for their wrong doings and for harming the greater community. The purpose of this justice system is to restore peace and equilibrium within society. When capital punishment was used, it was not used in the sense of “punishment”. This culture group clearly did not think that punishment by itself achieved justice; they believed that punishing the accused was to help his/her own conscience and the conscience of their family/friends. The philosophy in Aboriginal society was for everyone involved in the crime to acknowledge it and understand the immorality of it, allow for some process of atonement, and install a system that would help restore harmony to the community. They want restorative justice.

However, other culture groups such as the Aztecs had a strong sense of immediate punishment. In Aztecs society, if a crime occurred, the accused would be put on trial in local courts. The type of court differed based on whether the offender was rich or poor. There were no prisons in Aztec society. There did not appear to be any need for incarceration. The accused were tried and often executed swiftly. Death was carried out in a very public and painful manner. The accused would be taken to an alter and put to death by various methods, including stoning, or strangulation. The last emperor of the Aztecs, Montezuma II, who was an absolute monarch, and at anytime would call for an execution. Execution was clearly seen as punishment and payment for a crime and not to “restore harmony” in the community.

A well know symbol of the French Revolution is Madame La Guillotine – used to execute enemies of the  people. It consisted of 2 beams, a blade and a rope holding it up. When the knot in the rope was released the blade droped heavily onto the person's neck, which killed them almost instantly. Capital punishment was purposely carried out in public to catch the attention of onlookers and issue dire warnings to all those who would conspire against the Republic. Madame La Guillotine was used as an instrument of social change – to cut out the roots of a monarchy and aristocracy in order to grow a new egalitarian society.

The Victorians were a very ordered and highly stratified society; it was governed by a very strong moral code. Their use of capital punishment exemplifies this strong moral code, capital punishment was the result of a jury verdict, alleged criminals were given the chance to be judged by their peers. Unlike the Aztecs, it was not a monarch who ordered the execution, nor as in the French revolution it wasn't the mob who determined the death of an individual. The Victorians strongly believed that trial by jury and the conviction of an individual to death were the results of a fair process. And to the extent that an individual was provided with due process, the Victorians could accept and support the use of capital punishment as part of its system of justice and as a moral imperative.

Twentieth-first century American society is the beneficiaries of the Victorian system of law and order. The Victorians’ acceptance of capital punishment has been qualified by the American justice system. Considerable efforts have been take to exercise the most humane ways to execute an offender. More important, the death penalty is used as a last resort. Even after being convicted, individuals can exercise a number of channels for appeal. Present day Americans do did not immediately carry out an execution as did the Victorians. There is built into the justice an acknowledgement that a jury may have made a mistake or that new evidence may have surfaced. The in-fallacy of a jury is not assumed.



Work Cited:

Knaus, William, Wagner Douglas, Draper Elizabeth. Critical Care Medicine Vol. 17. Philadelphia: The Williams and Wilkens Co., 1989. Pg 181-185, 199-203. Print

Lynch, Mona. "Capital Punishment as moral imperative", Punishment & Society. California: Sage Publications, 2002. 213-236. Print

Sandstrom, Alan R. Corn is Our Blood: Culture and Ethnic Identity in a Contemporary Aztec Indian Village. New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files, 2010. Pg 84-120. Print.

Stone, Bailey. Reinterpreting the French Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Pg 1-12. Print. 

Warden, Rob. “Reflections on Capital Punishment.” North Western Journal of Law & Social Policy (2009): 331-359. Print.