should about-to-be-executed prisoners have the right to the last word?

[Everett_]

This issue has been on my mind for a while now, both because it is by itself an interesting subject, but also because I believe it has indirectly perpetuated the controversy surrounding the issue of capital punishment. Last words have a powerful impact. Roman martyr St. Lawrence is an excellent example; ordered by a prefect to bring in the 'riches of the church', he, in a premeditated and poignant gesture, brought in a string of disabled men, women, and children. As a result of this transgression he was essentially cooked to death over a grid iron. When prompted for his last words, however, he merely smiled and said, "Turn me over, I am done on this side". This words, as well as the cavalier attitude, resulted in a nearly city-state wide conversion to Catholicism within the next twenty-four hours.

The modern issue, of course, would be the potential for an already grieving family to experience undue pain from a cruel or callous remark arbitrarily thrown in by the executionee; another would be the possibility that the criminal will attempt to draw out the legal process by blurting out a lead that would be impossible to ignore.

I'm interested in opinions; likewise, if anyone has any links I will be exceedingly grateful.

 

[goofyfish]

Eugene Perry was executed in Alabama for a jewelry store robbery and murder. He always maintained he was innocent, and probably was. Another person who admitted to commiting the robbery was never investigated. Perry's final words were, "I am innocent of this crime." Yes, prisoners should have a right to last words.

We might even want to hear what they have to say.

:m: Peace.

 

[spidergoat]

I think prisoners have the right not to be killed. If you have already decided it's the best thing to kill them, why ask them for their words? ...it won't save their lives, I think it adds insult to injury.

 

[Persol]

considering you know some of them are going to be innocent, it's fairly barbaric.

I see very few circumstances where it is actually called for.

That said, they certainly should have the right to last words, no matter what those words are.

 

[Everett_]

It may seem like an obvious answer (addressing the issues of humane practice) but the opposing side has a point. The prisoner has probably had, at that point, appeal upon appeal; the case has likely taken months or even years, and many people would say that the prisoner gave up any rights once he took away someone else's so indefinitely. The US criminal justice system gives the accused the benefit of all doubt, as well as a multitude of chances to prove the prosecution wrong, and by the time the official process is over the issue has been rehashed so many times the slight chance of the criminal saying something of value may not be worth the pain.

I can't recall the specific example, as it has been a few years, but there was for sure an incident in which the executionee did blurt out something akin to a lead and they were forced to hold up the execution; it turned out, of course, that the lead was false, and in the process of buying himself more time the criminal was able to damage the family even further, as well as cost the state thousands of dollars. It's a known fact that the percentage of criminals accurately sentenced is far superior to those incorrectly sentenced; based on what the past has shown us, some may say our magnanimous and traditional acceptance of the criminal's last word may not be justified.

 

[Athelwulf]

I don't even see a contest here. Of course they should have the last word!

This was never something I've questioned, so I don't get why others are questioning it now.

 

[goofyfish]

It's a known fact that the percentage of criminals accurately sentenced is far superior to those incorrectly sentenced.

So the ratio is acceptable to you? And what is that ratio currently? How many innocent people have to be wrongly executaed before you believe the right to final words is okay?

:m: Peace.

 

[Everett_]

The ratio is not acceptable or unacceptable: I am taking an absolutely neutral stance on this so I may see all sides of the argument. Saying 'absolutely' or 'not at all' won't give me what I'm looking for. As for the ratios themselves, I won't push my sciolism onto you; every source, scholarly included, gives me a different answer, and it's foolish to attempt to justify exact numbers when I can't currently provide an adequate source, but the one thing they all had in common was the number of the falsely accused was significantly lower than the number of fairly sentenced individuals-- particularly in the last decade, where DNA evidence has became so much more prominent in court cases. In this area the facts are consistant, and any research on your part, I can say with confidence, will result in the same conclusion.

The issue was actually fairly well addressed in a 60 minutes special about a year back; three controversial issues touched upon were flag burning, the use of the word 'fuck' in public places, and in particular, the last words issue. Reiterating what I said above, the main argument for the side opposed is that the accused has already received their chance, many, many times over; I brought this up with several of my professors and there was apparently a push, or they felt there should be a push, for last words to simply be confined to paper, satisfying the right of the accused to indeed have somewhat of a final say and the right of the victim's family to experience closure without additional trauma; amendments are thus accommodated for all around.

Again reiterating, I am almost more interested in the theory that last words themselves, in addition to the new controversy, have furthered the older issue of the very heart of the matter itself: capital punishment. Examples like St. Lawrence would indicate that, had he said nothing at all, his execution would not have received nearly as much attention. In the end, though, he *was* prompted, and his words and manner sparked the wide-spread conversion and protests were similarly raised all around. If criminals were indeed forbidden to say anything... if the about-to-be-executed in the past had not put forth their respective last sentiments... would as much attention be directed toward the issue, or would capital punishment be more a taboo subject?