|
|
The
death penalty’s effectiveness as a deterrent to certain crimes has been and
will remain a divisive issue. Both
sides of the issue remain convinced of their respective views, united by a common
goal of proving the other side wrong.
Recently, however, the debate has shifted to a new level, no doubt as a
result of the popular voyeuristic television shows: Televised executions.
Let’s be honest here: How many people wouldn’t pay to see
the execution of a particularly perverted killer, or that of a celebrity? Sweeps weeks, the period when television
networks put on their best programming to lure statistical points, would take
on a new level of competition, pitting celebrity executions against each other
for advertisement revenue. With any
luck, maybe something will go wrong and we’ll get to see sparks from the
electric chair’s skullcap, or some agitation while inserting the lethal
syringes. Now that’s TV watching with a
purpose!
Macabre? Maybe, but if we look at the impact television has had on our lives, it’s not quite the idiot box it’s been made out to be. The four most recent wars are good examples of television’s impact on certain groups. WWI, a savage war fought mostly in bunkers with gas masks and bayonets, had a fair share of brave volunteers willing to sacrifice their lives for the common good of the nation. Likewise with WWII and the Korean conflict, young men and women made the ultimate sacrifice, and did so with a certain panache that almost urged the rest to follow their collective example. The Vietnam War was no different, from the standpoint of bravery and patriotism. What differed however with Vietnam was the national malaise felt back in the US towards these brave men and women. Had the country gotten less patriotic? No, the anti-war movement was a passionate, national one. The real-time television exposure given the Vietnam War altered the national perception of war, especially when compared to the Errol Flynn and John Wayne portrayals of war.
Personally, scenes of cargo nets full of dead sons and
daughters lifted and carried by helicopter to mass gravesites overwhelmed
me. The daily casualty counts reported
by the networks were also traumatic.
The ability to see Geraldo Rivera running through the jungle in Army
fatigues had a certain air of macho reporting, at the expense of a savage war
as a background. The unfortunate
reality though was the war, with all its atrocities, innocent civilian
casualties, and racial inequalities, was brought home to the dinner table in
unedited form. The true face of war was
revealed, conflicting directly with the Uncle-Sam, Buy-US-Savings-Bonds, almost
heroic perception that prior wars had, for lack of a better word, enjoyed.
Moving forward to the Gulf War, we were once again subjected
to full-blown television coverage, with more networks providing more
footage. There was an important
difference though with the Gulf War: The atrocities were no longer
revealed. In fact, most of the reporting
consisted of film footage taken from cameras placed in the cones of missiles,
detailing the precise and awesome power of these advanced, albeit expensive,
flying computers with warheads, reminiscent of the best shoot-‘em-up arcade
games. We were no longer forced to
watch body counts, innocent civilians torched by misguided incendiary devices,
and the obvious racial breakdowns of the troops. Therefore, the impact of television was recognized and adjusted
to better serve all parties. The
American public had nothing negative to polarize it when it came to the Gulf
War.
Televised executions can have the same effect on a certain
element of the American public, pretty much the same way the Vietnam War
reporting did. By bringing home the
atrocities, innocent casualties, and racial inequalities of the death penalty,
this nation will once again be polarized.
Perhaps the American public will finally decide whether sanctioned
killing or reweaving the social fiber is the better course of action, pretty
much the same way Walter Cronkite helped us form an opinion on the Vietnam
War.. According to the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, in the post-Furman period of 1977-1998, 62.5% of persons
executed were white, 35.6% black, and all other races constituted 1.9%. Compared to the US Census reports for 1998,
82.5% of the total US population was white, 12.7% black, and I suppose the
remaining 4.8% would constitute the elusive “other races” group. That number either speaks of racial
inequalities, or of socially neglected groups.
Either way, it’s an unhealthy ratio.
I once heard that most convicts claim innocence, a statement
that’s neither credible nor important.
I wonder though if indeed one wrongful execution is too many. Again, this is neither credible nor important. With these sorts of arguments, the death
penalty will forever remain a nebulous debate.
Take it inside the homes, apply contorted faces to the names we hear and
read about, see the last jerks of a dying person, and you would have the basis
of polarity similar to Jane Fonda’s impact on the American public in the early
70’s.
Let’s bring the brutality of sanctioned killing to the
dinner hour. Let’s force our kids to
watch it, learn it, and become good little citizens with it. Let’s bring the debate in the open, no
longer repeating mindless arguments and statistics, but referring to specific
executions and the people we all got to watch die. That’ll put the “vision” back in “television,” if you ask me.
Georges.