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. 

Introduction:

Capital punishment...what is it? 

Capital punishment is the legally authorized killing of someone for committing a crime.
"A life for a life", seems fair...But is it really? Does Capital punishment really achieve justice?
Throughout this blog, Capital punishment will be explored in anthropological  sociological and psychological aspects. There are many pros to the death penalty, such as comfort for the victim's family, or we don't have to pay tax to support the criminals. However what about the cons? Well, we would have to pay for the execution to take place, and innocent people may be executed due to errors during the trial. the goal is to establish which option is more moral. This debate has been ongoing for years, some people think capital punishment is immoral, and others think not having it implemented is unethical....

Which option truly achieves justice through anthropological, sociological and psychological ways? That is what we'll be discussing...