14 Days in May (Non football, serious stuff.)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unofficial Newcastle United Football Club BBS : One Thread

Last night (Sat) I watched a documentary called "14 Days in May", for the third time. It was made in 1987 and concerned the last 14 days in the life of an occupant of "Death Row" in Mississippi. Some of you will have seen it before I'm sure and will remember Clive Stafford Smith, an English lawyer who works in the USA and specialises in trying to save people from execution.

Anyway I just wanted to point anyone who may be interested, in the direction of reprieve.org.uk - (Sorry, I have no idea how to do links!). It's a marvellous website run by marvellous people and if like me, you detest the death penalty, then I'm sure you'll find it of interest.

There is a link on there to the execution tapes that were aired on American public radio recently. Fascinating and foul.

How does that song go again, "The land of the free......"?

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2001

Answers

Hmmm - you're right SMB. Serious stuff. I have to admit to being one in favour of the death sentence and feel that it is no coincidence that the rise in murder in UK rose after it's abolition. But I also have to say that I am also changing my view, albeit only very slightly.

What probably caused this slight shift is they way they do it in the US. The fact that somebody can be under sentence of death, yet spend many, many years on Death Row is horrendous to me. Even the short time that the Oklahoma bomber spent on DR appallds me, when linked with the media jamboree that went along with it.

I know and understand the arguments about the mistakes which have been made. Certainly the British justice system still leaves a lot to be desired, and taking the life of an innocent person can not be justified. But neither IMHO can taking the life of an innocent victim. And if the presence of the death penalty were to reduce the number of murders committed, then I think it would still have a valid place in society. But indeed, as you say, it is a very serious and highly volatile subject.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2001


You didn't mention what the individual on death row was convicted of doing. Or doesn't that matter? What was the name of his victim(s)? Or didn't they bother to mention that?

Sorry, they get no sympathy from me.

And I agree about the inordinate amount of time these people spend on death row. Their appeal period lasts considerably longer than the appeal period they give their victims. I'd make both about the same length if it was up to me.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2001


Stuck on the fence on this one I can see the validity of both sides arguement. If forced on a choice I would say no to the death penalty because of the uncertainty of some cases. They may be only a few incorrect verdicts but these are peoples lives were talking about and having seen jurys swayed by fancy dan lawyers without substance I could not send someone to hell if unsure.

On the other side of the coin I get the impression that prison could be a lot harder making it more of a deterrent for the convicted.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2001


I have always been ambivalent when it comes to justifying the death penalty. When there is some horrific murder, my immediate instinct veers towards executing the perpetrator. In more reflective moments, I feel that we, as members of society should not kill another human being. Superimpose on that the possibility that the guilty party might be innocent and that there is discrimination in the application of the death penalty, and the case against becomes even greater. As for long delays that occur between sentence and execution -- that is the choice of the condemned. And before cynics sneer at 'the land of the free' one should try to understand the American psyche. This is a country where there is a profound belief in the rights of the individual. There is much less emphasis on the duties of the individual -- and the condemned is exercising his/her rights when making repeated appeals against the sentence.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2001

I can understand the arguments of those against the death penalty, but I am definitely for it. But only when there is absolutely no doubt as to the guilt of an individual. I.E. Timothy McVeigh. The man not only admitted to the crime, but was proud of what he'd done. IMO he couldn't be executed fast enough. In fact in a case such as his, I actually though lethal injection was far too humane a punishment. He deserved the electric chair or worse. His victims didn't die that peacefully. Won't bring back teh 168 people he murdered, but at least he's no longer enjoying the freedom to breath, and my tax dollars are no longer keeping the barsteward alive.

And on the other side of my rant....
I was happy to hear on the news recently that a guy convicted of giving gov't secrets to the Russians has been given life in prison rather than the death penalty. That's a case where I do think the death penalty is too much. Forcing him to spend the rest of his life without any freedom is far more fitting of his crime than death.

And yes, that American idea of individual rights is precisely why these cases drag on and on and on. In many cases it winds up with the criminal often having it easier than the victim.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2001



ciara,
What if the secrets the spy gave to Russia subsequently causes the death of hundreds or thousands of your citizens or your allies? Should he then be treat any more leniently than McVeigh?

Much like Floridian, I insintively empathise with the death penalty when I see the results of some terrorist atrocity, but then fight shy when it becomes more real and personal.
Overall, I'm still not sure on the issue - but I can't help feeling that state- sponsored murder doesn't repair the damage, and somehow legitimises the act of taking life that it is intended to deter.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2001


That does cloud things a bit, but that is always going to be the problem with the death penalty. Also with a system that does not allow a person to be tried a second time for the same crime. So prosecutors have to try to get it right the first time to avoid that kind of scenario. I have faith they generally do so, except when the LAPD or FBI are involved :-/ It's the chance we take by being as strict as possible about who is actually executed. I honestly don't know where I stand when the proof isn't absolute. Part of me is still for it(moreso in violent crimes than simple spying), but the fact that people are wrongly convicted of crimes all the time makes it hard to know where to draw the line in less clear-cut cases. Then I'm more inclined to err on the side of some true scumbags not getting what they really deserve.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2001

I have no problems with the death penalty itself, it's the utterly disgusting ritual that nearly always accompanies an execution that nauseates me, including the years that might be spent on 'death row', . It doesn't mean, though, that I'd expect executions to be carried out in secret just to protect my sensibilities.

And I wouldn't advocate using a 'specialist' executioner, such as a hangman. The system I'd use would have the execution included as part of the jury system. Citizens would be liable for jury service, as now, but in capital cases, an individual's period of jury service would include the possibility of being involved in the subsequent execution.

There would be no spectacle, no family witnesses, none of that morbid crap. The method of execution would be such that only one of the twelve would actually have the means of execution, whatever that was. The other eleven would each use a placebo. No-one would know which of the twelve actually was responsible, so the consolation, if it can be called that, always exists for the jurors that they were among the eleven who had the placebo - the twelve rifles, eleven blanks scenario.

And, the jurors would be prevented by law from publishing in any way, any of the details, which is probably the case now, but I don't know cos I've never been a juror.

I've avoided being specific about the actual method that should be used, but it would have to be one which would fit easily into the procedure, so probably fatal injection would be the most convenient.

And that's the top off another can of worms.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2001


11 days in May...when United won the lot :-)

Anyway...I used to be 100% for capital punishment...for any murder. Recently I'm changing my views. I couldn't stand the way the Americans took to witnessing the death of McVie as a matter of right. McVie had no right to murder the people he did but also, what right do we have of taking his life? What good can it serve? There's a higher judge than us.

Of course I would probably feel different if I had lost a loved one to a murdering scumbag.

Somehow the Yanks do have it right though......they execute their murderers while we educated ours better than yer average comprehensive school student and let them watch Man Utd...all before a nice and pretty releas and NEW LIFE!!!!! This can NOT be right.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2001


In a previous job I regularly visited a no. of prisons including Armley (Leeds) and Barlinnie (Glasgow). The cockroach infested corridors, over-crowded cells, and atmosphere of latent violence will long live in memory. No holiday camp, believe me.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2001


Ooooh! We used to dream o' livin' in a cockroach infested corridor .... :-)

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2001

Moderation questions? read the FAQ