Dressler, Joshua 4/6/2016 For Educational Use Only DEATH DUTY A SOMEWHAT MODEST PROPOSAL TO..., 2 Green Bag 2d 345 © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 2 Green Bag 2d 345 Green Bag Summer 1999 Ex Ante DEATH DUTY A SOMEWHAT MODEST PROPOSAL TO BRING EXECUTIONS TO THE PEOPLE Joshua Dressler a1 Copyright (c) 1999 Green Bag; Joshua Dressler CAPITAL PUNISHMENT is a strange thing. Consider the recent call by some members of the media to televise an execution. One would think that death penalty opponents would condemn the idea as barbaric, and advocates of capital punishment should jump at the opportunity. After all, what better way is there to deter murders? Imagine some young, teenage gang member watching a Louisiana electrocution on CBS or, more suitably, MTV. Viewers would see the usual jerking of the body of the executed party and the ordinary smoke emanating from the body; they might even see why the electric chair is known as ‘Ol’ Sparky. ‘ And with just a little luck, the electric chair might malfunction again, permitting an even more gruesome picture that might deter even the most hardened criminal from committing a capital offense. In any case, why would a death penalty advocate want to hide the process he 1 advocates? Since we cannot all observe today's executions live, why not take advantage of technology to bring the process into our living rooms? 2 But, the debate over televising executions has not followed predictable paths. Although there doubtlessly are proponents and opponents of the proposal on both sides of the death penalty debate, much of the opposition to televising executions comes from death penalty advocates. They don't want us to see the executions conducted in the public's - our - name. Instead, it is the opponents of capital punishment - the very people who probably cover their eyes when watching the movie Fargo - who want to open executions tothe *346 public. Who would have figured this? But, as I observed, capital punishment is a strange thing. Consider the debates in the 1980s regarding the then-new mode of execution, lethal injection. Legislative proponents of the death penalty were often at the forefront of efforts to adopt this form of execution, on the ground that it is a more humane way to kill people. Since there does not seem to be an ideal way to test out the accuracy of this hypothesis, I am prepared to believe that the death penalty advocates are right (or, at least, are sincere) in this regard. And if so, one might naively assume that death penalty opponents would favor the change on a lesser-evil basis. But, lo and behold, capital punishment abolitionists have often opposed the change or conscientiously stood aside during the debate. I suspect that some of them feared that if executions seemed unmessy, even painless, juries might sentence more persons to death and sleep better at night at the same time. Death penalty opponents don't want us to sleep well at night as we execute people. That is why some of them want us to watch Ol' Sparky in action. One more story needs to be set out here. In 1981, while the legislature of the State of Oklahoma debated whether to amend its death penalty statute to permit executions by lethal injection, a state lawmaker responded by introducing a bill that might be characterized as the Ultimate Lex Talionis Law. He argued that a murderer should have the choice of dying in the same manner as his victim. ‘If an inmate wants to be clubbed to death or stabbed to death, let's give them [sic] a chance.‘ 3 The good senator's bill died (or was executed) in committee.