LIberalism and the Death Penalty
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2025 6:59 pm
One problem with modern liberalism is that it abhors the dramatic. For example, modern liberalism opposes the death penalty. This is all well and good – abolishing the death penalty would doubtless protect innocent people from being wrongly executed, protect the vengeful public from drenching its hands in the blood of the guilty, and advance civility.
But advancing civility does not always promote morality, or even humanitarian causes. Civility is a fine thing, but it is a veneer disguising the dramatic realities of life. Good breeding (Mark Twain wrote) consists in concealing how much we think of ourselves, and how little we think of the other person. Far be it from me to object to concealment on principle. But liberalism is supposed to promote openness.
The death penalty is a perfect example. An execution used to be a dramatic, public event. The murderer, heavily shackled, was paraded through the streets of the town in a donkey cart. The family of the soon to be deceased wept. The relatives of the murdered watched. The condemned man spoke his last words, which, if the audience was lucky, were something dramatic like, “See you in hell, mom.”
Today the drama of an execution has been demeaned, what with “lethal injection”, an execution technique that makes killing someone look like a medical procedure. Liberalism got rid of the public square, the donkey cart, the guillotine and the gibbet, although we have yet to get rid of the needle. But why should we get rid of the guillotine and the gibbet? Although lethal injection may save the witnesses from queasiness, it is hard to argue that it is much more humane for the guest of honor. And it is certainly less humane for the city desk reporter, who in olden days could write, “The great blade flashed, and X’s head and body (like his soul and body) were permanently severed.” What can be written about lethal injection?
Modern liberalism promotes excessive (and phony) civility. If we can’t ban executions, let’s at least disguise them. If we can’t get rid of poverty, let’s at least get these homeless people off of the street, so we can’t see them any more.
An execution used to be a dramatic, public event. The murderer, heavily shackled, was paraded through the streets of the town in a donkey cart. The family of the soon to be deceased wept. The relatives of the murdered watched.
Today the drama of an execution has been demeaned, what with “lethal injection”, an execution technique that makes killing someone look like a medical procedure. Liberalism got rid of the public square, the donkey cart, the guillotine and the gibbet, although we have yet to get rid of the needle. But why should we get rid of the guillotine and the gibbet? Although lethal injection may save the witnesses from queasiness, it is hard to argue that it is much more humane for the guest of honor.
If we are going to execute people, we should have the courage to avoid concealment. Let’s do it right. In the public square. With a guillotine. If a little blood makes us squeamish, if a head falling into a basket seems inhumane – maybe we should abolish the whole thing.
But advancing civility does not always promote morality, or even humanitarian causes. Civility is a fine thing, but it is a veneer disguising the dramatic realities of life. Good breeding (Mark Twain wrote) consists in concealing how much we think of ourselves, and how little we think of the other person. Far be it from me to object to concealment on principle. But liberalism is supposed to promote openness.
The death penalty is a perfect example. An execution used to be a dramatic, public event. The murderer, heavily shackled, was paraded through the streets of the town in a donkey cart. The family of the soon to be deceased wept. The relatives of the murdered watched. The condemned man spoke his last words, which, if the audience was lucky, were something dramatic like, “See you in hell, mom.”
Today the drama of an execution has been demeaned, what with “lethal injection”, an execution technique that makes killing someone look like a medical procedure. Liberalism got rid of the public square, the donkey cart, the guillotine and the gibbet, although we have yet to get rid of the needle. But why should we get rid of the guillotine and the gibbet? Although lethal injection may save the witnesses from queasiness, it is hard to argue that it is much more humane for the guest of honor. And it is certainly less humane for the city desk reporter, who in olden days could write, “The great blade flashed, and X’s head and body (like his soul and body) were permanently severed.” What can be written about lethal injection?
Modern liberalism promotes excessive (and phony) civility. If we can’t ban executions, let’s at least disguise them. If we can’t get rid of poverty, let’s at least get these homeless people off of the street, so we can’t see them any more.
An execution used to be a dramatic, public event. The murderer, heavily shackled, was paraded through the streets of the town in a donkey cart. The family of the soon to be deceased wept. The relatives of the murdered watched.
Today the drama of an execution has been demeaned, what with “lethal injection”, an execution technique that makes killing someone look like a medical procedure. Liberalism got rid of the public square, the donkey cart, the guillotine and the gibbet, although we have yet to get rid of the needle. But why should we get rid of the guillotine and the gibbet? Although lethal injection may save the witnesses from queasiness, it is hard to argue that it is much more humane for the guest of honor.
If we are going to execute people, we should have the courage to avoid concealment. Let’s do it right. In the public square. With a guillotine. If a little blood makes us squeamish, if a head falling into a basket seems inhumane – maybe we should abolish the whole thing.
