Editorial comment

• Published date: 01 December 1989
• Date: 01 December 1989
• DOI: 10.1177/104398628900500401
• Author: Ken Peak
• Subject Matter: Articles

ii

EDITORIALCOMMENT

&dquo;It

bath

been

often

said,

that

it

is

not

death,

but

dying

which

is

terrible: ’

-

Henry

Fielding,

Am~~i~.

Society,

once

created,

makes

constant

demands

upon

its

members.

Newman

(1978)

stated

that

&dquo;Punishment,

the

bane

of

man’s

existence,

becomes

the

natural

food

for

the beautiful

monster

he

has

created:

society&dquo;

(p-2~~.

Wehaveadvancedbeyondtheapotropaicformsofpunishment~e.g.,

beheading,

breaking

on

the

wheel),

and

are

generally

comfortable

in

the

notion

that our

methods

comport

with

the

dignity

of man

and

are

not

heinous

or atrocious.

Yet,

though

favored

by

a

majority

of

Americans,

the

death

penalty

has

possible

engendered

more

debate

than

any

other

criminal

justice

issues

this. notwithstanding the S upreme Court’ sunequivocalsupportanddirection

in

all

major

legal

aspects

of

the

issue

(including

most

recently

the

age

and

mental

state

of those

executed).

We

in

academe

remain

strongly

divided.

Many

American

scholars

endorse

the

death

penalty

on

broad

moral

grounds

and

support

our

system’s

demonstrable

outrage

toward

those

condemned

to

death.

Those

who

maintain

this position

believe

it

is

right

to

hate

criminals

and

to

exact

the

most

severe

punishment

against

the~e

evil

deeds.

Conversely,

many

eschew

capital

punishment

and

agree

with

Amnesty

International

and

allied

organizations

such

as

California

Death

Penalty

Focus,

that

it

violates

the

right

to

life

and

is

cruel

and

inhumane.

The

fallibility

and

appropriateness

of

the

death

penalty

are

common

discussion

topics

in

our

classrooms.

Meanwhile,

research

continues

to

enlighten

us,

exploring

the

effects

of

lex

talionis

and

the

general

resurgence

of

the

retributive

notion

of

justice.

Though

seemingly

researched

with

less

frequency

than

in

the

1970s,

some

scholars

continue

to

examine

the

disparities

of

capital

punishment

in

the

areas

of

sex,

class,

and

race,

while

others

attempt

to

fill

the

breech

by

analyzing

its

fallibility

and

deterrence

value.

This

issue

contains

five

views

of

the

death

penalty,

heretofore

largely

ignored.

Gennaro

F.

Vito

and

Thomas J.

Keil

provide

a

unique

longitudinal

studyof juvenilesundersentenceofdeath, in&dquo;SelectingJuveniles

for Death:

TheKentucky

Experience,

1976-1986.&dquo;

Specifically,

they compareofB&nse

and

victim

characteristics

of 864

adults

and juveniles

in

their

sample.

Their

findings

may

be

surprising

to

many

readers.

M.

G.

Neithercutt

provides

a

quantitative

view

of the

relationship of the

death

penalty

to murder and

suicide.

Specifically, heanalyzeddatain a fime

frameofescalatingfrequenciesofexecutionstodeterminewhethertherewas

a

concomitant

decline

in

murders;

then

he

proceeds

to

perform

the

same

correlation

between

executions

and

suicides.

Philip

L.

Reichel

and

Lisa

Munden

undertook

a

content

analysis

of

the