Editor its chlcß Tim Pyle
W 641)346-5511
Room 300, Etb Metmäal Unjon
P.0. Box3159. Enge-ne, OR 97403
M Most-gen Mochi
casliue edition-: Mdajlyanemldcom
Anything but CJjCjCTV7Z1C
A recent electric-chair execution in Florida again shows how barbaristic electrocution really is
If you woke up tomorrow
morning and read in this
newspaper that a man had
grabbed onto a live electrical
wire, accidentally electrocuting
himself, one of your first thoughts
would probably be “What a horri
fying way to go.”
Yet, put that same man in a
state-sanctioned electric chair,
pull the switch, causing the exact
same death, and most of you
would turn the page without
thinking at all.
What’s the difference between
those two scenarios? Obviously, the
first situation is an unfortunate
mishap, while the second set of cir
cumstances is an act to punish the
person for committing the most
heinous crime of all—murder.
Thirty-eight states carry the
death penalty as a form of punish
ment, with 11 of those states hav
ing the option of the electric chair
to perform the ritual. Of that latter
group, just four—Alabama,
Nebraska, Georgia and
Florida — use electro
cution as their sole
method of exe
cution.
Oregon uses lethal injection to
carry out death sentences, and
two recent experiences with
Florida’s electric chair are good
reason for all states to eliminate
this 2,000-volt shock treatment.
Various pro- and anti-death
penalty groups are debating the
constitutionality issue of “cruel
and inhumane punishment” in
light of the Sunshine state’s prob
lems. In March 1997, witnesses
reported that “five- to six-inch
flames shot up” from Pedro Medi
na’s head during his execution.
Even the Vatican condemned the
scene as “barbaric,” and the use of
electrocution in Florida was post
poned and scrutinized.
Although the chair used for the
acts was rebuilt earlier this year,
anofher incident on July 1 put the
issue back on the debate table.
Blood pooled on the shirt front of
Allen Lee Davis,
a 344-pound
inmate, as
he was
put to
death. State officials said Davis
had a nosebleed, but death-penal
ty opponents argued that the inci
dent was yet another example of
“cruel and inhumane punish
ment.”
Here’s how the late U.S.
Supreme Court Justice William
Brennan, Jr. described electrocu
tions in his 1984 dissent in Glass
v. Louisiana:
“Witnesses routinely report
that, when the switch is thrown,
the condemned prisoner
‘cringes,’ ‘leaps,’ and ‘fights the
straps with amazing strength.’
‘The hands turn red, then white,
and the cords of the neck stand
out like steel bands.’ The prison
er’s limbs, fingers, toes, and face
are severely contorted. The force
of the electrical current is so pow
erful that the prisoner’s eyeballs
sometimes pop out
and ‘rest
on [his]
and vomits blood and drool.”
Does a supposedly civilized so
ciety really need to allow a third
strike before putting to rest the
use of electrocution?
This editorial is not to defend
nor oppose the capital punish
ment issue as a whole. Similar to
the extremely emotional abortion
debate, people with opinions on
the death-penalty topic are not
likely to be swayed one way or
another.
But can’t we find common
ground in the elimination of a
“barbaric” method to deliver the
message that with the act of mur
der comes the ultimate penalty?
While some people will proba
bly never be convinced that elec
trocution is cruel and inhumane
— one father of a murder victim
in Florida responded to Medina’s
fiery death by saying, “They
ought to put marshmallows on
Sh his head” — support for the
cneeKS.
The
prisoner
often
defecates,
urinates
cnangeover to lethal injection
comes from odd sources.
“Killing someone cannot be
done humanely, but it
can be done with as
little pain as pos
sible, as little torment,” comment
ed Robyn Blumner of the Ameri
can Civil Liberties Union, a vehe
ment opponent to the death
penalty.
The defining argument, howev
er, likely comes from Justice
Brennan, who said electrocutions
are “nothing less than the con
temporary technological equiva
lent of burning people at the
stake.”
As we approach
the 21st century,
shouldn’t we take all
the necessary steps to
leave the 16th century
behind?
This editorial repre
sents the opinion of
the Emerald edito
rial board. Re
sponses may be
sent to
the electric chair
9
i
3
ttectoonkCes: gSKalin tiRietj DrllRk
CORRECTION
The July 20 arti
cle "Parent
Trap" should
have read:
“On July 15, a
second civil
suit, asking for
up to $250,000,
was filed against
the Kinkel estate
on behalf of sur
vivor Richard
Peek Jr.
“The Kinkel es
tate is valued at
$528,127.
“Teresa MHton
berger was shot
in die forehead
andinthengbt
thigh."
The Emerald re
grets the error.
Oregon
Wald
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published daily Monday through Friday during the
school year and Tuesday and Thursday during the summer by the Oregon Daily Emer
ald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University ot Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. A member of the
Associated Press, the Emerald operates independently of the University with offices in
Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private property. The unlawful re
moval or use of papers is prosecutable by law.
NEWSROOM -^541)346-5511
Editor in chief: Tim Pyle
Associate Editors: Jack Clifford, Mirjam Swanson
Reporters: Sara Jarrett, Sara Lieberth
Webmaster Broc Nelson
Paginator Broc Nelson
Photo Editor. Catharine Kendall
ADVERTISING — (541) 346-S511
Becky Merchant, director
Melissa O’Connell, Van Nguyen, advertising assistants.
Rachelle Bowden, Brian Diamond, Dan Hageman, Jesse
Long, Adam Rice, advertising sales representatives
CLASSIFIEDS — (541)3464^
TrinaShanaman, manager
BUSINESS — (541) 346-5512
Judy Riedi, general manager
Kathy Carbone, business supervisor
Melissa O’Connell, receptionist
Roni Goldbeck, Michael Higgins, John Long, distribution
PRODUCTION — (541) ^464^81
Michele Ross, manager. Tara Sloan, coordinator