VOLUNTARY EXECUTION:
BETTER THAN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?


SYNOPSIS:

    Capital punishment has 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.

    Should we 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.
With voluntary execution,
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 Leonard 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 executing 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
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.
If they foresee nothing but more years in prison,
ended only by natural death,
they might be given the option of voluntary execution
on a date of their own choosing.



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.
Historically, the executing authority has set the date of execution.

    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 would 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 a fair try
will know just what living in prison 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 day of natural death.

    The fact that the prisoner chooses the date of execution
would be dramatic proof that death is a free choice made 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 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 a free choice
to die by means of voluntary execution
rather than living in a box until natural death.

    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 could also investigate further to determine the current thinking
of the prisoner who seems to be requesting death.

    Prisoners who have previously requested voluntary execution
would always be 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 prisoner would have the right to change his or her mind
and return to the prison cell.
Reliable witnesses would have to be present
to make certain 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 would 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 should 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 would be required to apply for voluntary execution.

    Many other reasonable safeguards might be used.
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
could be overcome by safeguards which empower prisoners
freely to say "yes" or "no" to voluntary execution.

    Any system of voluntary execution would need
ways to get around the inherent difficulties imposed by the prison environment.
What further proofs would be helpful to establish
that every decision for a voluntary execution is a truly free choice?

 
   This question is explored in more detail in the following on-line essay:
"Can a Prisoner Ever Make a Free Choice?"

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/FREE-PRI.html
This essay offers 11 safeguards to make sure that the choice is voluntary.



4.  TEN OTHER SAFEGUARDS USED FOR ORDINARY LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS.

    Several safeguards have been proposed for the purpose of making certain
that all decisions likely to lead to death are wise and compassionate:
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 in exploring the option of 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 safeguards most applicable to voluntary execution.
The complete explanation of each safeguard will appear
if you click the blue name of that safeguard.
The safeguards retain their letters from the original list.

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.
The other safeguards below will confirm
that the prisoner is really making a voluntary request for death.

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.
An exception to this rule would be a prisoner who applied for voluntary execution
before losing the mental powers needed for re-affirming this choice.
In that case, proxies for the prisoner could take over responsibility for
carrying forward the plan for 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 main form of psychological suffering might be due to this incarceration.
But there might be additional forms of psychological suffering worth considering.
The prisoner would be 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 on a specific date in the future?

K. INFORMED CONSENT FROM THE PATIENT

    The practice of obtaining informed consent from a medical patient
could be extended to the situation of voluntary execution.
Others would 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.
Everyone involved must be convinced that the prisoner really understands
the request for voluntary execution.

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 date chosen for 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 would be 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 could 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 doubters
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 would look for any 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 would already be specified in law.
A period of 12 months or more is suggested in this proposal.
Every caution would be exercised to make certain
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 could 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?

    The reason for the odd lettering system above
is that the letters remain from the complete list of
26 recommended safeguards for life-ending decisions.



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 involuntary executions were abolished,
then there would be no further need to review the cases.
No prisoners would be kept on death row.
All prisoners will live within the same prison population.
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.

    If capital punishment is abolished
and perhaps replaced by the option of 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 by the real murderer).

    Because we have heard so much about mistakes of the legal system,
it might be 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 wrongful conviction
can focus on other prisoners, who might actually be innocent.

 
   For more discussion of confessing the crime,
see the open letter linked below.


Created May 31, 2009; Revised 6-4-2009; 6-6-2009; 6-11-2009; 10-7-2009;
1-22-2010; 3-19-2010; 2-5-2011; 5-29-2011; 11-11-2011; 11-24-2011



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".




OPEN LETTER TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS
OF A CONDEMNED PRISONER
WILLING TO DONATE ORGANS AFTER EXECUTION




ORGANS FROM THE EXECUTED
This is the first essay (drafted in 2001) by James Park
about organ-donations from death-row.



ORGAN DONATION AFTER EXECUTION
This is a portal linking to many other resources on the Internet.



A Facebook Page has been created:
Prisoner Organ Donation.
This group welcomes participation by anyone interested in organ donation from prisoners:
prisoners who have Internet access, family members, friends,
lawyers, prison authorities, transplant surgeons, medical ethicists, journalists, & students.



Go to the Medical Ethics index page.


Go to other cyber-sermons by James Park,
organized into 10 subject-areas.



Go to the opening page for this website:
An Existential Philosopher's Museum












The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.