Friday, November 1, 2013

Attorney: Ohio execution changes not acceptable

1. (New Braunfels Hearald, Nov. 1)

2. Category: Judicial System/Court case

3. Level: State (Ohio)

4. This article concerns an Ohio execution that is being challenged due to the new, never-tried lethal injection system.

5.  This affects families and individuals because this man, Ronald Phillips, raped and killed a three year old girl. I think that in regards to the family, it comes down to them receiving justice for their daughter. If this man keeps on pushing back and pushing back his date, then that justice will never be received.

6. I believe that this guy should receive the death penalty, with no argument. He raped and killed a three year old and expects to not pay the price for doing so. If he keeps trying to get his attorneys to fight for him to push back his injection date, he's just buying time. The attorneys are trying to push the date back as they gather evidence for the new lethal injection system. The attorneys believe that this system will cause painful side-effects such as painful vomiting and are trying to challenge this two part system. The court states their case as it will cause Phillips to stop breathing within a few minutes and then the second part will cause irreversible brain and heart damage that will cause him to die a few minutes later. I think that as harsh as it sounds, Phillips should be ordered to go through with his November 14 death date because his actions of raping and killing an innocent child put him in that position. He did the crime, he should and will pay the time.

1 comment:

  1. This crime has to be among the most heinous in recent news, and I completely agree that someone guilty of something like that should not be treated with any type of sympathy from the justice system. However I'm not sure the death penalty, particularly painful or not, is necessarily the best way to deal with criminals who have committed heinous and violent crimes such as the one in question. You (and many) appear to support the death penalty on the grounds that it is the only way to truly serve justice in crimes such as this. I'd argue that execution is actually not the pinnacle of justice, and that upholding it as such has harmful social implications.

    One element of justice is ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. It could be argued that, for criminals, the death penalty is actually a preferable alternative to life in prison, particularly for individuals who have been convicted of sexual abuse. Criminals who receive life in prison are subject to the shattering of their freedoms, abuse from prisoners and prison officials, inhumane treatment, and a life of having to face the realities of the crime they committed. Criminals who receive the death penalty are effectively released from all of the above. I personally don't believe that an individual guilty of raping and murdering a child deserves even the solace of death. So, in the sense that life in prison may actually be a worse, possibly more inhumane punishment, I don't think the death penalty could be thought of as the pinnacle of justice served.

    Another element of justice is ensuring that those individuals who are innocent are not punished for crimes they didn't commit. Convictions of innocent people are not uncommon, especially in heinous crimes which beg victims and jurors to serve justice as swiftly as possible. The death penalty basically guarantees that if someone is found to be innocent after conviction (and subsequent death), there is really no chance of retribution for this individual. It seems pointless to imbue such permanence of decision in the context of a human justice system, something which is so naturally flawed. In the sense that the death penalty can facilitate something as unjust as an irreversible punishment on an innocent person, I don't feel it can necessarily be thought of as a pinnacle of justice.

    Further, our justice system reflects our society's moral values and when the justice system upholds death as a form of justice or problem solving, it perpetuates the moral validation of murder in the US. If killing someone is truly an effective and appropriate way to enact justice on someone who has committed a heinous crime, then what role does the justice system play when clearly justice could be served without them?

    Overall, I don't really feel the death penalty is an effective way to serve justice, nor do I feel that it maintains any positive effect on society or the instance of criminal behavior.