Executing Women
Slate is running a partly thoughtful and partly confused article by Dahlia Lithwick about the planned execution of Teresa Lewis. She observes that there's no particularly serious reason to believe that Lewis has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice:
She bought the guns and ammunition used in the murders. She allegedly left the back door open for the killers and waited more than an hour to call 911 while her husband bled to death. She ransacked her dying husband's pockets for money she then split with the triggermen. ... There was no evidence of systemic misconduct or bias in the case against her. She's white. She doesn't claim to be innocent. But I still can't find a lot of people calling for her execution to take place as scheduled on Thursday.
And she suggests--correctly, I'm sure--that the lack of enthusiasm for killing her reflects a general social revulsion toward the idea of applying the death penalty to women, however grim their crimes. The confused part is the conclusion she draws from this:
But who's really going to argue for gender parity in state-sanctioned execution? Is anyone out there celebrating Lewis' shattering of another glass ceiling this week? Hard to imagine even the staunchest feminist insisting that if women commit 10 percent of the murders, they should compose 10 percent of those executed for it. The better feminist response to the infrequency of capital punishment for women should probably be to fight to see that it's equally rare for men.
The first and last sentences of this paragraph are clearly in contradiction; it seems Lithwick herself is calling for gender parity in executions. She's just calling for the parity to be achieved by reducing the number of men executed.
The death penalty disturbs me very greatly. I'm entirely persuaded that unbearable miscarriages of justice happen frequently. Recent advances in forensics have made this particularly clear. But I have no idea how any other punishment could be considered justice in a case like this one, for example. And I'm also persuaded by the evidence that the death penalty is indeed a very serious deterrent, one that as such saves lives.
I don't really have a position I can fully defend on the death penalty, for or against. But of all the arguments that might sway me, ones deriving from the ideal of "gender parity" would be pretty low on the list. Ancient social taboos against doing violence to women aren't something I'm keen to eradicate. If we feel no special enthusiasm for killing women, and if that leads to disparities in the rate at which we execute them, that's fine with me.
- Comment (38)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Executing Women
Evidence on deterrence is inconclusive at best and if anything points away from it having any effect on crime, so not sure where this statement is coming from. The Supremes seem to have settled on an uneasy can't-prove-it-does-can't-prove-it-doesn't compromise.
I hardly trust the state to get this one thing right-enough and say err on the side of life and offer individuals a chance at redemption.
Jun '10
Re: Executing Women
We are most amused by your choice of avatar. We would also recommend replacing the first person singular with we, so prose and avatar might match more closely.
Re: Executing Women
I'm actually (unusually) going to stay quiet on this thread, because I don't (unusually) have a position I feel confident in defending. Everything about the issue makes me nauseated--the crimes that inspire this debate, the idea of state executions, everything. I can easily go either way on it. I'll sit back and let you discuss it.
Re: Executing Women
Cas, I'm wondering if that avatar quite suits this post. Maybe for this one I should be rolling out something a bit more sober-looking. The barrister wig and the scimitar of justice. A deeply sensitive expression. Oh well. There's a limit to what I can worry about.
Jun '10
Re: Executing Women
Claire, take the British legal route, judges when pronouncing the death sentence would put a black cloth over their legal wigs. If you want to know how many foot pounds torque are recommended to properly snap the neck in the long-drop method, it was once 1,200 ft. lbs. later adjusted to 1,000 ft. lbs. That means a man of 200 lbs must be dropped at least five feet, which drop may also be adjusted for neck size based on the judgement of the hangman. The noose in combination with the drop actually breaks the neck by pushing the head forward so that the force acts on the neck. When properly done its very quick. You don't want to know what happens when too long a length of rope is allowed in the drop. The noose loop, by the way, is measured at thirtieen inches. I know, I know too much information.
Jul '10
Re: Executing Women
"Ancient social taboos against doing violence to women aren't something I'm keen to eradicate."
Well, what say You about Ladies in the Military?
May '10
Re: Executing Women
Indeed, the death penalty is a deeply troubling and vexing issue. And that's why I'm grateful that an increasing number of federal judges are willing to rule it unconstitutional. Soon I won't need to trouble my pretty little head about it.
Jun '10
Re: Executing Women
As a person of faith, albeit sometimes struggling faith, I prefer incarceration to execution. Our earthly existence is short enough as is. Should the convicted not be given the full allotment of days to seek redemption before the Lord? Jesus pardoned a thief during His own crucifixion; is this not precedent enough? I see room here for a very special type of prison ministry, and think it worthy of consideration.
Edited on Sep 23, 2010 at 4:17amMay '10
Re: Executing Women
Given that recent advances in forensics prove that innocent people have been put to death, could such evidence be as conclusive in assigning guilt for capital cases going forward?
Re: Executing Women
Trace and Paules, I completely agree with your positions. 100%. And, Claire, that crime you linked to -- the one in Connecticut -- is one I've followed closely. It is truly horrifying. I suppose if I could be persuaded that the death penalty is valuable, I'd give it to those two guys. Especially, since the father/husband is in favor of it, and quite vocally so. However, I personally find it difficult to be pro-life and pro-capital punishment. Life should be preserved, whether "innocent" or guilty. Especially, as Paules noted, to allow more time for true contrition to take hold. I believe all efforts for change should be focused on the prison system. I think James P. wrote a post or two about our prison system... What to make of the cushy deals for some and the inhumane conditions for others? The rapes and brutalities that guards turn a blind eye to? That causes me great grief. It would be quite hard to contemplate one's choices and come to God if you are worried that you'll be knifed at lunch, for example. It sure is a tricky issue.
Jul '10
Re: Executing Women
The death penalty was abolished in the UK in 1964. As for the black cap, it is still a part of the judicial get-up, worn by judges on November 9 when the Lord Mayor of London comes to court.
Regardless of what one's position is on the death penalty in the US, one would have thought that any objections to executing women were settled by the 19th Amendment and subsequent laws abolishing discrimination of any sort on the basis of sex.
Edited on Sep 23, 2010 at 6:12amRe: Executing Women
Trace Urdan
Evidence on deterrence is inconclusive at best and if anything points away from it having any effect on crime, so not sure where this statement is coming from.
Trace, I was going to dig up the studies that at one point persuaded me that the argument was in favor of "Yes, it's a deterrent," but I realized mid-search that I was looking for evidence because I'd already said it, rather than saying it because I'd recently considered the evidence. So I'll retract that, and go have a fresh think about things.
May '10
Re: Executing Women
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Trace, I was going to dig up the studies that at one point persuaded me that the argument was in favor of "Yes, it's a deterrent," but I realized mid-search that I was looking for evidence because I'd already said it, rather than saying it because I'd recently considered the evidence. So I'll retract that, and go have a fresh think about things. · Sep 23 at 6:17am
I'm no expert and not nearly as accomplished a researcher as are you, but I think the conventional wisdom says there is both supportive and contradictory evidence on both sides depending on which data you choose.
Sep '10
Re: Executing Women
~Paules: As a person of faith, albeit sometimes struggling faith, I prefer incarceration to execution. Our earthly existence is short enough as is. Should the convicted not be given the full allotment of days to seek redemption before the Lord? Jesus pardoned a thief during His own crucifixion; is this not precedent enough? .... · Sep 23 at 4:16am
Edited on Sep 23 at 04:17 am
You refer to Luke 23:39-43.
Jesus didn't save the criminals' physical lives--even though doing so was easily within his power. Instead, he pardoned one criminal and the other, I infer, went on to eternal punishment.
Although I may be idiosyncratic in this, I believe that the state's right to put-to-death (it "does not bear the sword in vain," as Paul wrote) is an image of God's right to judge the world. If we stop believing in the state's right to punish with death, we either will stop--or already have stopped--believing in God's right to deliver the ultimate eternal punishment.
As a Christian, I hate the death penalty like hell. But both are just.
Aug '10
Re: Executing Women
"lack of enthusiasm for killing her reflects a general social revulsion toward the idea of applying the death penalty to women,"
Hey, depends on the social category. What about the world's largest religion ?
Aug '10
Re: Executing Women
"lack of enthusiasm for killing her reflects a general social revulsion toward the idea of applying the death penalty to women,"
Hey, depends on the social category. What about the world's largest religion ?
Looks like the Google machine picked up on the meme and placed "an appropriate ad" in the right column.
May '10
Re: Executing Women
The death penalty is right when it's necessary to protect the lives of others. Such cases rarely, if ever, arise in the modern United States, provided government is willing to do what else is necessary (such as silence and isolate a prisoner like Charles Manson). Where jail-breaks and extortion of guards are regular, imprisonment of murderers might not provide reliable protection for citizens. In a battlefield scenario, soldiers might be unable to take a hostile captive without grave risk to themselves.
Basically, we should apply the same principle to all considerations of whether or not to take a life: killing is acceptable when necessary as defense.
There is no adequate punishment for some crimes. There's no way to adequately punish a man for raping and murdering an entire family that does not involve malicious acts towards innocents. We can't make him feel the same and don't want to repeat such tragedies. Worldly justice is literally impossible in such cases. So we must rely on divine justice.
Incidentally, our current system assumes divine justice. Otherwise, what purpose is served by keeping someone caged for life? We allow even the worst opportunity for personal change.
Jun '10
Re: Executing Women
Ed Jordan: "You refer to Luke 23:39-43.
Jesus didn't save the criminals' physical lives--even though doing so was easily within his power. Instead, he pardoned one criminal and the other, I infer, went on to eternal punishment.
Although I may be idiosyncratic in this, I believe that the state's right to put-to-death (it "does not bear the sword in vain," as Paul wrote) is an image of God's right to judge the world. If we stop believing in the state's right to punish with death, we either will stop--or already have stopped--believing in God's right to deliver the ultimate eternal punishment.
As a Christian, I hate the death penalty like hell. But both are just."
Christ brought before Pilate never complained that the state didn't have the right to take his life. If we assume that the trial is fully recorded in Scripture, the argument against the death penalty is conspicuously missing.
Edited on Sep 23, 2010 at 8:25amSep '10
Re: Executing Women
~Paules:
...Christ brought before Pilate never complained that the state didn't have the right to take his life. If we assume that the trial is fully recorded in Scripture, the argument against the death penalty is conspicuously missing. · Sep 23 at 8:23am
Edited on Sep 23 at 08:25 am
It sounds like we agree about that.
May '10
Re: Executing Women
Life imprisonment in a hell hole jail is not necessarily better than a quick and humane execution; it does however stop some people from having to face the fact that the have to make a terrible choice sometimes in dealing with the nature of evil. It avoids all those guilty feelings that are loaded up in the death penalty,
Teresa Lewis wickedly took time and effort to murder her husband, and the facts do not seem to be in dispute. There have always been miscarriages of justice; this is hardly a reason for not punishing those found guilty.
Reading thru the argument about whether Christ was for, or against the death sentence, I recall render to Caesar the things that are Caesars. There is a history of the death penalty from the old testament onwards, although Saul (St Paul) and the first martyr Stephen is probably not a good example of execution due to blasquemy (let's not go back to the Koran burning example please)
The Church's great philosopher/Doctor - St Thomas Aquinas (See Summa Theo. Q64) has also endorsed the welfare of the community over the life of an evil individual making it lawful to kill them.