Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Two days ago, 76 year old Clarence Ray Allen was put to death  in California – the second oldest death row inmate in the US to die since the death penalty was re-introduced thirty years ago. Allen’s lawyers had pleaded with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the U.S. Supreme Court that executing an old and feeble man amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

"With the help of four large correctional officers, Clarence Ray Allen shuffled from his wheelchair to a gurney inside San Quentin’s death chamber early Tuesday, a day after his 76th birthday. Though legally blind, Allen raised his head to search among execution witnesses for relatives he had invited.

"Hoka hey, it’s a good day to die," Allen said in a nod to his Choctaw Indian heritage. "Thank you very much, I love you all. Goodbye."

Clarence Ray Allen was pronounced dead by lethal injection at 12:38am Tuesday morning at San Quentin State Prison.There was a sickening twist to Allen’s execution however – he didn’t die after the first attempt. The barrel-chested prisoner’s " heart was strong to the end, forcing doctors to administer a second shot of potassium chloride to stop it.

Anticipating a possible replay of his September heart attack in September, Allen had asked prison authorities to let him die if he went into cardiac arrest before his execution, a request prison officials said they would not honor.

"At no point are we not going to value the sanctity of life," said prison spokesman Vernell Crittendon. "We would resuscitate him." [only in order to execute him later!].

Crittendon explained that executions are scheduled for one minute after midnight because the death warrant is only valid for that day, giving authorities time to treat an inmate’s ailments, then kill the prisoner without having to seek another order. 

Allen was nearly deaf and had diabetes. Medical records show he was indeed ailing, and prison officials did not dispute his condition. However, some observers saw a man in better condition than had been portrayed."

This commentary is not a debate about the death penalty. My attempt here is to shed light on the so called "Culture of Life" favored by the Bush administration and its right wing supporters.  That culture is anti-abortion, anti physician- assisted suicide for the terminally ill of sound mind, and against withdrawing life support from patients (like Terri Schiavo) who are in persistent vegetative coma. The right wing mantra is that all the above constitute taking of "innocent" lives. If on the other hand, someone qualifies as "guilty" in their eyes, the same "pro-life" folks become conspicuously blood thirsty. The deaths of "innocent" civilians during the conduct of an illegal war of choice, are characterized as "collateral damage", execution of a condemned prisoner is brushed aside as "just retribution", even if that person is mentally retarded or psychologically impaired. Please note that in their zeal for meting out justice, they see no special irony in resuscitating a person from a near fatal condition just so that they can put him to death. The perverseness is mind boggling.

During the more "primitive" days of execution by hanging, if the rope broke, the prisoner went free. The logic was that no human hand should try to second guess "divine intervention". In the era of "humane" execution by lethal injection, the modern executioner’s manual contains no such etiquette of reprieve after a failed attempt.

Posted in

8 responses to ““Culture of Life” – only to be interrupted by war and execution”

  1. Good post! Hypocrisy it certainly is!

    Like

  2. These are the people who say that end-of-life decisions are supposed to be made by “god”, until the person in question can’t be a political football because they’re foreign, or a prisoner, or suspected of some phantom terrorism, or brown-skinned.
    Then it’s just a matter of how fast they’ll be killed. Their belief on this is “Screw god, let’s waste ’em”.
    Sad.

    Like

  3. Niels Jackson

    The perverseness is mind boggling.
    Not nearly as mind-boggling as the perverseness of people who hold the opposite positions — whose hearts weep for vicious murderers that might be put to death, but who proudly support the abortion of innocent babies.

    Like

  4. Robert Allen

    hey Niels,
    ‘vicious murderers as distinguished from, what, non-vicious ones?

    Like

  5. Mark

    This is really quite economcially inefficient.

    Like

  6. tom-e-lee

    Ole Clarence lived 26 years longer than his innocent 4 victims, thanks to a bizarre appeals system.

    Like

  7. niels, assuming for the sake of argument that an embryo is a “human being”, obviously a debatable position (whereas nobody debates that a murderer is a human being), why is “the perverseness of people who hold the opposite positions” so much more mind-boggling?

    Like

  8. tommyboy

    a-train,
    it’s not. killing a person is killing a person, criminal or baby in the womb. however, we have not executed 46 million criminals over the past 33 years, but we have babies in the womb… and whether or not a fetus is a “human bening” is only debatable in the sense that black people or jews may or may not be “human beings.” at one point in history we “debated” whether they were human beings and came to realize that they were, and it was erroneous to think that we could decide if their life was convenient or not.
    in the case of babies in the womb, you have a being with 46 seperate and distinct human chromosomes and a beating heart. since its heart is beating, it is a being. since it is made up of a completely unique human chromosonal structure, he or she is a HUMAN BEING, even if it’s incovenient for you.

    Like