VOLUNTARY
EXECUTION:
BETTER
THAN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?
SYNOPSIS:
Capital punishment has a number of well-known
problems.
When we think of the death-penalty, we remember first the prisoners
who were executed who later turned out to be innocent.
We think also of the possible disparities of race
in imposing
the
death-penalty.
But we could abolish all imposed executions
and make voluntary execution
an option:
Any prisoner who admits his or her guilt
could choose to be executed at any time
rather than spending the rest of his or her life in prison.
Then, would most of the problems of capital punishment disappear?
OUTLINE:
1. THE EXACT MEANING OF VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
2.
THE
PRISONER WOULD SELECT THE DATE OF EXECUTION.
3. TWELVE REQUESTS FOR VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
4. TEN OTHER SAFEGUARDS USED FOR ORDINARY LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS.
5. THE
HIGH COST OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
6. PRISONERS
MUST CONFESS THEIR CRIMES, REMOVING ANY DOUBT.
VOLUNTARY
EXECUTION:
BETTER
THAN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?
by
James Park
1. THE EXACT MEANING OF VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
State and national laws everywhere on the planet
Earth
could be changed so that the
death-penalty would be abolished
—and
possibly replaced by the
option of voluntary execution.
Voluntary
execution means a death for which the
legal authority is responsible.
This is not an ordinary voluntary death or a merciful death.
It would only be called an "execution" if it is carried out
by the government authority responsible for imposing punishments.
But in this case, the specific form of punishment would be chosen by
the prisoner.
The prisoner would not be
sentenced to die.
Rather, the prisoner would be allowed
to select a voluntary execution
instead of spending the rest of his or her life in prison.
The primary prisoners who would be allowed the
option of voluntary execution
would be persons who have been properly convicted of murder in the
first degree.
They would be given the option of selecting a voluntary execution
at any time instead of waiting for natural death in prison.
Another class of prisoner who might be allowed the
option of voluntary execution
would be prisoners serving terms of imprisonment
that would be so long
that they are very likely to die in prison.
2.
THE
PRISONER WOULD SELECT THE DATE OF EXECUTION.
Because voluntary execution is really a free choice
coming from the prisoner,
the date of execution
would be chosen by that prisoner.
This differs from the customary practice of capital punishment,
in which the execution is carried out after all of the appeals have
been
completed.
It is quite possible under any new policy of
voluntary execution
for a convicted prisoner to live for several years in prison
before deciding to choose a voluntary execution.
Safeguards will be created to make sure that the
prisoner
has had ample opportunity to adjust to life behind bars.
Perhaps life in prison will not be so bad after all.
Only those who have given prison life a fair try
will know just what it feels like to them.
Some who initially thought they would select voluntary execution
might later decide that they would prefer to live in prison until
natural death.
Or they might decide to live most of their remaining
years in prison,
followed by a voluntary execution when they are nearing the end of
their natural lives.
Voluntary execution means that the prisoner can select any date of execution
between one year after sentence up to the moment of natural death.
The fact that the prisoner chooses the date of
execution
is a dramatic proof that it is really a free choice by the prisoner.
3. TWELVE REQUESTS FOR VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
The most basic safeguard against abuses of voluntary
execution
would be letters voluntarily written by the prisoner
who is choosing such an unusual way to die.
These letters would be sent in several copies to a
number of trusted persons
outside the prison system and who can be called upon to testify
if there is ever any question of the authenticity of the letters.
Copies could also be sent to family members,
who would also preserve them just in case there might be some question
of falsification.
We will be especially suspicious of letters from
prisoners in less developed countries.
Their governments might have officially abandoned capital punishment,
but the practice within the prison system might still be directed
toward
an early death for all prisoners who committed murder.
Perhaps there will be an international organization
against capital punishment
which will receive copies of such letters requesting voluntary
execution.
And if they suspect that there is any coercion or manipulation of the
prisoner
who allegedly wrote the letters,
this agency would be empowered to make face-to-face contact with the
prisoner
to see if he or she freely wrote the letters and if this is really his
or her choice
—to
die by means of voluntary execution
rather than to spend the remaining days of his or her life in prison.
Of course, copies of these freely-written letters
would also go to the prison authorities responsible for carrying out
voluntary executions.
And if anyone in that office suspects that guards or others
are putting pressure on the prisoner to request 'voluntary execution',
that office can also investigate further to determine the current
thinking
of the prisoner who seems to be requesting voluntary execution.
Prisoners who have previously requested voluntary
execution
are always free to change
their minds.
This is one reason for requiring at least one year for them to decide.
Something about their lives in prison might change,
so that they decide that they can tolerate life-imprisonment after all.
Something in their own thinking or feeling might have changed,
so that they are no longer want voluntary execution.
Some prisoners will have religious conversions in prison,
which might lead them to change their minds about voluntary execution.
Of course, religious conversion might lead in the opposite direction:
Prisoners might decide to donate their
organs after execution
as a means of finally doing something that saves other lives
rather than kills other
people.
Up until the very last moment of consciousness
before execution,
the prisoners have the right to change their minds and go back to their
cells.
Reliable witnesses must be present to make sure that the execution is
truly voluntary.
Does the prisoner freely want to die at this time?
Witnesses should also verify that the twelve written
requests for death were voluntary.
This will make certain that the choice of voluntary execution
was thoughtful and consistent,
giving the prisoner plenty of time to re-think the choice of voluntary
execution.
Witnesses will verify that each letter was a freely-written document,
not something required by the prison authorities.
And all forms of subtle, psychological manipulation should also be
ruled
out.
No prisoner will be required to apply for voluntary
execution.
Many other reasonable safeguards will be proposed.
But some unreasonable
safeguards will also be proposed,
which are really disguised
efforts to prevent all executions.
The claim that it is inherently impossible for a prisoner to make a
free choice
can be overcome by safeguards which empower prisoners
freely to say "yes" or "no" to voluntary execution.
We need ways to get around the inherent difficulties
imposed by the prison environment.
What further proofs would be helpful to establish
that every choice for
a voluntary execution is a truly free choice?
4. TEN OTHER SAFEGUARDS USED FOR ORDINARY LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS.
If more safeguards are needed, 26 more are described
here:
26 RECOMMENDED
SAFEGUARDS (A-Z):
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-A-Z.html.
Each of these could be adapted to the situation of voluntary execution.
And some would usually not be relevant,
such as the safeguards for determining the terminal illness of the
patient.
But if the prisoner convicted of a capital crime is also terminally
ill,
that could be a relevant fact to include in the decision for or against
voluntary execution.
Some of these additional safeguards
call for the opinions of others, such as family members.
If there are any family members still concerned about
the prisoner,
their opinions might be relevant.
Other safeguards are designed to make sure that the
patient
is really free in his or her choice of a voluntary death or a merciful
death.
For example, informed-consent procedures might also be used.
Here is a list of the 10 most relevant safeguards
to use for considering voluntary execution.
The complete explanation of each safeguard will appear
when you click the name of that safeguard.
The
letters remain from the complete list of
26 recommended
safeguards for life-ending decisions.
These 10 selected safeguards are applied to the option of voluntary
execution:
C. REQUESTS
FOR
DEATH FROM THE
PATIENT
The prisoner makes repeated, confirmed requests for
voluntary execution,
extending over a period of at least one year.
D. THE PATIENT
IS
MENTALLY CAPABLE OF MAKING A LIFE-ENDING DECISION
If there is any doubt about the prisoner's mental
powers,
a professional evaluation would be in order.
Is the prisoner still able to make a wise decision for voluntary
execution?
If the prisoner has become incompetent (or never was competent),
then there can be no voluntary execution.
I.
UNBEARABLE
PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING
In the case of a prisoner condemned to spend the
rest of his or her life in prison,
the suffering might be mainly due to this incarceration.
But there might be additional forms of psychological suffering worth
mentioning.
The prisoner is the one who evaluates the quality of his or her
suffering
and compares it with the option of voluntary execution:
Which would be better for me?
Would I prefer to spend the rest of my life in prison
or to choose a voluntary
execution to be carried out in some future year?
K. INFORMED
CONSENT FROM THE PATIENT
The practice of obtaining informed consent from a
medical patient
can be extended to the situation of voluntary execution.
Others will make certain that the prisoner really knows
that he or she is choosing to be put to death.
Voluntary execution is not a 'time-out from life'.
Execution means the
prisoner's life is over forever.
L.
REQUESTS
FOR
DEATH
FROM THE PROXIES
If and when the prisoner has appointed proxies to
make medical decisions,
these same proxies might be called upon
to evaluate the prisoner's decision to choose a voluntary execution
rather than die a natural death in prison.
Proxies could also be authorized to carry forward the decision for
voluntary execution
if the prisoner becomes incompetent during the waiting period
before the scheduled execution.
O.
STATEMENTS
FROM FAMILY
MEMBERS
AFFIRMING OR QUESTIONING CHOOSING DEATH
Likewise statements from family members of the
prisoner
will either affirm or question the choice of voluntary execution.
Some might raise the doubt that the prisoner is really making a
voluntary choice.
In that case, deeper investigation is required.
All open-minded observers must be convinced by the fulfilled safeguards
that the choice of voluntary execution is truly free.
P.
A MEMBER
OF THE
CLERGY
APPROVES OR QUESTIONS CHOOSING DEATH
The prisoner might have developed a relationship
with the prison chaplain.
In this case, they might have discussed the option of voluntary
execution.
And this member of the clergy can add his or her statement to the
collection
of safeguards intended to prevent a premature death.
If a member of the clergy approves the voluntary execution,
this should help to convince more distant observers
that voluntary execution really is the best option.
S.
STATEMENTS FROM
ADVOCATES FOR
DISADVANTAGED GROUPS
IF INVITED BY
THE PATIENT AND/OR THE PROXIES
If the prisoner is a members of an identifiable
group sometimes disadvantaged,
then a representative of that group might be asked
to review the decision for voluntary execution.
This outside observer will look for any and all signs of coercion.
If no undue pressure or manipulation is found,
then all people who might have raised that kind of doubt
can be assured that the prisoner
was not suffering discrimination because of group identity.
Even a representative of the prisoner's identity group
has verified that the decision for voluntary execution is truly a free
choice.
U. WAITING
PERIODS
BEFORE DEATH IS PERMITTED
In the situation of considering voluntary execution,
the waiting periods are already specified in law.
Every caution has been exercised to make sure
that the prisoner has consistently requested voluntary execution
over a period of time that allows ample opportunity to change his or
her mind.
V.
OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THE PATIENT TO RESCIND ANY LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS
And the prisoner who is choosing voluntary execution
should be given explicit opportunities to change this plan for death.
Just because the process has been started
does not mean that the voluntary execution must be carried out.
At any time, while still capable to making meaningful decisions,
the prisoner can reverse the decision for a voluntary execution
or postpone the chosen date of death.
Other workable safeguards might be suggested,
which can be added to this list.
What additional safeguards would allow all open-minded people
to agree that voluntary execution was a truly free choice by the
prisoner?
5. THE
HIGH COST OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
In the United States, it costs more than $3 million
to execute each prisoner on death row.
This money actually goes to lawyers who are hired to defend the prisoner
and to other lawyers who must argue the other side of the case.
Prisoners on death row do not usually want to die.
So they keep filing appeals because each legal delay means a few more
months of life.
If capital punishment is abolished,
with all of its endless appeals and other legal process,
then almost all of these costs will disappear.
Instead of spending millions of dollars trying to be as fair as
possible to the convict,
the same amounts of public money can be spent in more meaningful ways.
If there are no involuntary executions,
then there would be no further need to review the cases.
No prisoners would be kept on death row.
Only criminals who freely
confess to their crimes
will be allowed to consider the option of voluntary execution.
6.
PRISONERS
MUST CONFESS THEIR CRIMES, REMOVING ANY DOUBT.
When capital punishment is abolished and perhaps
replaced by voluntary execution,
then one major problem with the death-penalty will disappear:
Was the person put to death really guilty of the crime?
False confessions must always be ruled out.
The prisoners who apply for voluntary execution
must agree that they were fairly tried and convicted.
Evidence beyond their own confessions must be part of the legal record.
This safeguard rules out the vast majority of people
on death row.
Almost all claim that they did not do the crime.
And as long as they maintain their innocence,
they will not be eligible for voluntary execution.
There is always the possibility that new evidence will come in
(such as evidence pointing to someone else as the killer
or a death-bed confession that someone else committed the crime).
Because we have heard so much about mistakes of the
legal system,
it is a bit difficult for us to get our minds around the possibility
that there are actually people on death row
who did the crimes
for which they were convicted
and who have been justly sentenced as a punishment for those crimes.
Without making any estimates of the number of guilty
versus innocent,
the requirements of any new laws on voluntary execution
must make clear that the prisoners who are applying for voluntary
execution
have publicly admitted that they did the crimes
for which they are now being punished.
All who still claim to be
innocent do not qualify for voluntary
execution.
They will stay in prison until they die or are exonerated and
released.
And prisoners who previously claimed to be innocent
can change their public stance to admitting that they are guilty
of the crimes for which they were fairly convicted and sentenced.
This change of claim about the crimes
might take place several years after the events.
Even someone who maintained for many years in prison
that he or she did not commit the crimes
might later decide to confess.
In order to prevent any mistaken executions,
only confessed criminals
will be considered for voluntary execution.
Lawyers against the death-penalty would not be
relevant:
The prisoners will not cooperate in any further defense
because they are now agreeing that they did in fact commit the murders,
etc.
The facts of the past harmful behavior have now been
publicly acknowledged.
Then the opponents of the wrongful conviction
can focus on prisoners who might actually be innocent.
Created
May 31, 2009; Revised 6-4-2009; 6-6-2009; 6-11-2009; 10-7-2009
AUTHOR:
James Park is an independent existential philosopher,
living and writing in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Much more about him will be discovered on his website called
An Existential
Philosopher's Museum,
which now has over 1,000 rooms.
See a closely related cyber-sermon:
"Voluntary
Execution Followed by Organ Donation".
Go to other
cyber-sermons by James Park,
organized into 9 subject-areas.