The independent newspaper of the University of Iowa community since 1868

The Daily Iowan

The independent newspaper of the University of Iowa community since 1868

The Daily Iowan

The independent newspaper of the University of Iowa community since 1868

The Daily Iowan

Grissel: An eye for an eye

Grissel%3A+An+eye+for+an+eye

By Hanna grissel

[email protected]

On Election Day, a few states made decisions regarding capital punishment. Nebraska overwhelmingly voted in favor of bringing back the death penalty. California voted to expedite the process, so the convicted will spend less time on death row, allowing them less time to appeal. Oklahoma voted to protect the death penalty, even after scrutiny from the federal government after a botched execution in 2014.

The executed was prisonor Clayton Lockett, who was administered a cruel and unusual cocktail of drugs, which made him wither and convulse in agony for 45 minutes before dying — a sight most wouldn’t want to have to see.

Along with some of those who work in the process of executions, many wardens and prison officials who have planned and carried out executions have become anti-death penalty activists over the years. One such activist is the former superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary, Semon Frank Thompson. Writing in a New York Times guest opinion in September, “after each execution, I had staff members who decided they did not want to be asked to serve in that capacity again. Others quietly sought employment elsewhere. A few told me they were having trouble sleeping, and I worried they would develop post-traumatic stress disorder if they had to go through it another time.”

Randy Workman, the warden of the prison that carried out Lockett’s execution, has expressed a different view of things. In a Guardian interview on the subject of capital punishment, Workman said “the only thing I can tell you for certain whenever people say do you believe that the death penalty will stop crime, I can guarantee you that person will never commit a crime again, and that is as far as I’m going to say,” Workman said. “Do we need to have the death penalty? Yeah I’m an advocate for it … Is it cost effective? Gosh no. We spend millions of dollars on these cases and going through the process and the end result is the family, do they feel vindicated? I’d say 90 percent of the time, the people I’ve seen don’t.” I wonder if he feels any different after witnessing the botched execution.

The death penalty potentially traumatizes correctional officers, rarely brings solace to the crime victim’s families, and is an incredibly expensive and inefficient process.  It has been a decade since California last carried out an execution, yet more than 700 inmates are currently awaiting the sentence.

In 2014, a study by the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania found that at least 4.1 percent of inmates on death row are innocent, and some of these individuals have already been put to death.

The idea of the state executing innocent people is disturbing for obvious reasons. Yet it’s not surprising to me that many of us see execution as a viable option in response to heinous crimes.

If we want to live in a world where we kill killers, than we should probably hire people to starting raping rapists. If we want to live in an “eye for an eye” world, then we should consider the moral implications of ending a human life.

More to Discover