A DUTY TO KILL

• Pages: 133-167
• Date: 20 December 2000
• Published date: 20 December 2000
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1521-6136(2000)0000002010
• Author: Elizabeth McLin

A DUTY TO KILL: AN OCCUPATIONAL

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE FRONT

LINES OF A KILLING INSTITUTION

Elizabeth McLin

The American’s Creed

I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for

the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy

in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and

inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity

for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

William Tyler Page

The world wants to be deceived. The truth is too complex and frightening; the taste for the

truth is an acquired taste that few acquire.

Walter Kaufman, I And You: A Prologue, 1970

INTRODUCTION

Every society faces the perplexing dilemma of dealing with its citizens who

step outside the boundaries defined by law. A quagmire of conflicting values

and emotions surrounds societal dealings with violent offenders and decisions

about when and if the death penalty will be imposed. In the United States,

survey after survey indicate strong contemporary support for the use of capital

punishment (Dobrin et al., 1996). On the surface it seems simple that, in a

democracy, when the majority support a concept it should be maintained.

Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, Volume 2, pages 133–166.

Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ISBN: 0-7623-0680-7

133

However, state executions do not occur in public, but behind closed doors,

where only a few are privy to the actual process. In this case, the dispensation

of justice operates behind a veil, thus discourse and public opinion emerge in

a vacuum, with little known fact or thought given to the actual practice as

experienced by the condemned or those whose duty it is to personally carry out

executions. Citizenry are able to hold at arms length the concept of capital

punishment and find comfort in the knowledge that their fears of crime and

victimization can be dispensed with through the State’s willingness to act on

their behalf by eradicating offenders from the face of the earth.

The majority of Americans support capital punishment; yet the institution is

semi-covert. Therefore, conversations occur and support is given without

complete awareness of the actual practice despite common acknowledgement

of the capricious nature of the system. National studies indicate that half of

those opposing capital punishment would support it if changes were made

(Bohm, 1989). Hence, while executions occur where we cannot see or

experience them, as a nation, we support the act. Ideally, the decision to support

or oppose a proposition should be given only after different perspectives are

incorporated into the public’s conversation. It is not enough to be frightened

and ask the State to assuage our fear by killing. Killing those convicted of

capital crimes one-by-one will not appease a nation’s fears if new criminals

continue to emerge. Public debate in support of capital punishment revolves

around the need for punishment, the possibility of deterrence, retribution for

victims, and the economic burden of maintaining the lives of offenders. It is

with sadness that some supporters ask, “What else can we do? Something has

to be done and we can’t just keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.” On

the other side, opponents argue against the death penalty, citing the capricious

and arbitrary way it is dispensed and fearing for the lives of those falsely

accused. Regardless of these two sides, a more fundamental issue must be

addressed because the real question is whether capital punishment is the way

we want society to address problems associated with crime. And if so, we must

understand the institutions that are requisite for support and the lives of the

human beings who are impacted.

Only those unequivocally opposed to any taking of life will find a clear-cut

answer. Otherwise, how can we support or oppose an institution we know so

little about? How can an opinion be rendered in the absence of information on

the practices, the handlers, and the condemned? To sanction State killing, as we

have, we must not turn away from knowing the details. As a nation, we prefer

to be distanced from unpleasant realities. We purchase things one might not

otherwise buy because we have access to virtual money. We can take it home

tonight by simply ‘swiping’ a card and never feeling any cash exchange hands.

134 ELIZABETH McLIN

For many of us, we would never prepare meat or foul if we had to slaughter and

prepare it ourselves. Instead, we can purchase neatly packaged trays of meat at

the nearby grocer with the butcher handling all the details for us. Similarly,

public debate on capital punishment occurs with both sides avoiding the details

and neither side wanting a comprehensive view. Proponents and opponents

argue, giving theoretical reasons for their views, while executions are carried

out with both sides preferring an abstract conception rather than detailed

account. The discourse is too theoretical arguing whether executions deter and

if the system is fair. Such approaches are devoid of the human dimensions that

deserve attention. State-sanctioned killing is a serious business and worthy of

careful consideration of the complexity of issues, including all humans affected

by our decision to authorize the killing.

Part of the discourse should include the lives of human beings touched by the

institutions and practices necessary to carry out a death sentence. Recent

writings have begun to offer the general public thought-provoking exposure to

death row and the process of state executions. Works such as John Grisham’s

The Chamber and Sister Helen Prejean’s Dead Man Walking: An eyewitness

account of the death penalty in the United States provide exposure to issues

relevant to the death penalty debate in a format accessible for general

consumption. Grisham captures a fictitious convict’s battle to avoid death by

lethal gas, while Sister Prejean takes a poignant look at the emotions of the

real-life families of both the victims and the condemned in a capital crime.

Such writings offer a glimpse behind the veil at the institution, by touching

upon the very real human agony as experienced by a doomed man and those

around him. These contributions inform the public by adding a human

dimension to the debate.

Still, there are two other considerations related to humanity that seem absent

from contemporary discourse. First, those most likely to land a seat on death

row do not just wake up one day and start killing. Most often, public discourse

refers to death row inmates as ruthless individuals, rotten to the core, with no

redeeming qualities. No consideration is given to the process that ‘created’ that

kind of human being. In the works of Lonnie Athens and Joel Norris, readers

are given insight into how the environment may interact with genetics or social

norms to create a person who is not humane. If violent humans are created, not

born, discourse on the death penalty should, at the very least, include an

acknowledgement of the process. By ignoring this process, it becomes possible

to view death row inmates as less than human, and once dehumanized, our

decision to kill becomes simpler and our discomfort eased. Even with this

added dimension, the picture is not complete, for an important component is

135A Duty to Kill