The Case Against Public Executions: A Modern Perspective
The longstanding debate over the morality and efficacy of capital punishment has been reopened by suggestions to publicize and monetize these executions. This controversial proposal, while seemingly aimed at demonstrating and deterring criminal activity, raises serious ethical, social, and legal concerns.
Historical Context and Current Practices
Despite the United States' ban on cruel and unusual punishment in the Constitution, there is significant debate over whether modern justice systems have proceeded too far in ensuring the privacy and dignity of condemned individuals. As observed in countries like North Korea, which openly showcase such executions, the practice can be sensationalized and viewed as entertainment.
During my time in Saudi Arabia, witnessing a public beheading was a stark reminder of the stark contrast between the more public practices seen in less developed nations and the more secluded executions in the western world.
Publicizing Executions and Entertainment
Some have suggested that televising and publicizing executions could expose the emotional distress and fear of the condemned, thereby deterring criminal activity. Advocates for such measures argue that it would transform public executions into a deterrent, akin to the infamous practice of public hangings in the past. These executions, they propose, could be monetized through video sales and ticket revenues, to be used in benefiting the families of victims.
Opponents of such practices argue that cameras and the public gaze would not only turn judicial killings into morbid spectacles, but would also be deeply traumatizing, especially for those who would be required to witness such events.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
The suggestion to return to public executions as a means of deterring crime is met with resounding opposition from both legal and ethical communities. The U.S. has already moved away from public executions, a move recognized as a step towards greater civilization and respect for human rights. While some argue that less advanced societies, like those in North Korea, continue to practice public executions, the U.S. should not regress to these barbaric methods.
From a legal standpoint, the U.S. Constitution and international human rights laws emphasize the protection of individuals from cruel and unusual punishments. Public executions, which violate privacy and dignity, are incompatible with these commitments. Moreover, the idea of charging, selling tickets, and profiting off of the trauma of witnessing executions is morally reprehensible.
Deterring Crime Through Legal Principles
Criminal deterrence can be achieved through more conventional and ethical means, such as the effective application and enforcement of laws, access to rehabilitation and legal assistance, and societal education on crime prevention. Reliance on public executions as a deterrent is both ineffective and unethical.
Conclusion: While the idea of publicizing and monetizing executions might appear to offer a quick fix to the problem of crime, it fails to address the root causes of criminal behavior and relies on exploiting human fear and trauma. The practice of public executions is a relic of a bygone era, and the civilized world has moved on from such barbaric and unworthy practices.