The Vietnam War was the first war which brought to the American people on the home front what really was going on; this meant that even those most reluctant to look at the world honestly were hard pressed not to admit the brutality in it. This was largely because of pictures, mostly TV news coverage, which came into its own at about this time(that’s another blog subject, right there). But old-fashioned still photographs played a large role too and there were two which stand out in the memories of those of us who remember Vietnam and that whole time and experience.

One of them is of a naked little girl crying and running down a street while behind her bombs go off and there is incredible destruction. The juxtaposition of innocent childhood and horrifying violence was unforgettable. But I’ll bet almost as many would list as most memorable Eddie Adams’s brutally honest photograph of a South Vietnamese police official executing an accused Viet Cong terrorist by shooting him in the head at extremely close range.

This picture is relevant to what I have to say now in that it is honest and depicts unedited and unsweetened the violence of execution. One cannot look at it and not be made to shiver at the human condition. This is part of what I wish to address right now. I want to discuss the execution which took place last week in which the State of AL executed Kenneth Eugene Smith by use of nitrogen gas. I will get back to the Viet Nam photograph and its importance in due time.

Smith had committed a murder in 1988, a vicious murder for hire in which he had killed a woman for money. He was obviously a terrible person then. I don’t know what he was last week before they took his life. But I do know this. I am not quite willing to say I oppose capital punishment absolutely and in all ways at all times. There could be some exceptions. But they would be few. I hate this form of punishment and I am not fond of people, particularly politicians, who are cheerleaders for it. If you had to list me as an an opponent or supporter of capital punishment, “opponent” would be the right column. 
But except for a brief time about a half century ago during which the US Supreme Court had forbidden it, capital punishment has been with the US since its inception and looks like staying for some time. (It had, of course, been with nearly all nations from their inception in the past, but the great majority have now dispensed with it). The question becomes–or at least a question arises–How is it to be carried out?

 I wish we didn’t have to answer this question but the fact is we do, so here are some thoughts. Throughout history there have been many brutal and intentionally cruel executions.(Somewhat counter-intuitively, the viciousness seems to have reached its height not during the supposedly gruesome Middle Ages, but during the presumably more compassionate Renaissance–not everything, apparently was better) Others simply took life without regard to the pain involved or, perhaps. in spite of it. There have been attempts to make it more humane. 

One way of keeping capital punishment legal is to protect people from grasping how awful it is, how likely not only to cause suffering when inflicted, but how inclined to degrade those who order it and those who carry it out, and indeed how it coarsens and cheapens the entire society that allows this. One way of preventing people from thinking about this a great deal is to shield them from it, the way older relatives often(and frequently stupidly)try to shield children from the harsher realities of life. This means not too exact descriptions of the execution itself. Use the relatives of the prisoner and the relatives of the victim for whose death he is being executed. Describe their faces and their reactions and get some quotes from them. But be careful of describing the execution in too much detail. Concentrate on the fact of what happened, but less on the details; do not allow the middle middle(sic) class ladies to whom life is a long tea party and people are all “nice” or “not nice” to learn too much of this rather extreme example of not niceness.

This would be particularly true of photography. Don’t let the photographers too close, discourage pictures of the the actual execution and the pain that may be involved, and don’t upset the reader/viewer with too much nastiness. If they ever really turned on nastiness who knows who or what they’d go after and with what results?So while you cannot treat this in any way lightly, don’t let it get too degraded–too offensive–too off putting to your customers. Keep them protected–keep them happy or at least not too unhappy Don’t let then think about the man who carries out the duty and his family and friends. Don’t let them think about his humanity or lack thereof or what he does in his spare time, or what the duty does to him and those who love him. And if you keep the reporting clean, then likely most of them won’t think about it whole lot.

In the days of the internet this gets a little harder to do, particularly as restrictions, legal or prudential, apply less and less., There are some fairly graphic descriptions of Smith’s execution available. USA Today ran a story in which it recounted the following details–The execution took about 22 minutes. “Smith appeared to convulse and shake vigorously for about four minutes after the nitrogas began flowing …” It took another two or three minutes before he seemed to lose consciousness. 

Through this all he appeared to be gasping. None of us knows of course, for certain, how long he was conscious or to what extent he was conscious. So we use our own judgement–or guesses–as to how bad this was. But as for me, I simply think that it was terrible and it should never have happened. If the state is going to execute people, surely its enough to take their lives. Torture should not be part of the process and any government which pursues a policy that intentionally or not includes torture degrades itself, its people and their civilization.

It’s not hard to kill someone humanely, assuming that such a thing can be done in a humane fashion at all. There are lots of ways you could do it. A blunt instrument, for example or a shot in the head. And now we are close to getting back to the Adams photo from Vietnam, aren’t we? I think that the whole issue here has something to do with not getting blood on our hands–literally, particularly, but also figuratively as far as possible. This means being(willfully?)ignorant of facts. And that’s why the Vietnam photograph is such a straightforward part of what I mean. Largely protected by this attitude, we want to go on as if nothing much has happened, as if the executions were carried out quietly and efficiently and the condemned man died quickly and without being tortured. 

But too much honesty brings doubts about this point of view. The thing about the Vietnam picture is that it does two things important to our subject and they are somewhat contradictory. It depicts an execution by handgun in which a South Vietnamese police commander shot a suspected Viet Cong terrorist in the head at short range, almost no range. The picture was snapped simultaneously with the shot. The condemned man appears to be in great pain. The executioner may well have quite literally gotten blood on himself. This is the sort of thing to be avoided if you want to avoid controversy about capital punishment 

But conversely, it shows something else. It shows the prisoner in extreme pain, but any rational person looking at it should note that the pain was almost certainly very short–like about 2 seconds. So there is a way in which the picture works both sides of the street. It both shows us the brutal violence and also shows a way of execution that would be, if not painless, then at least mercifully short. There would not be any physical torture involved.

So where does this leave us? Sadly about where we were. I will say this further about the Viet Nam picture. It shows, to repeat myself, two things. Execution is a violent, awful thing. But, secondly, however violent and gory it is as it happens, it is possible that it can be done quickly and without prolonged torture. Regarding the first, the efforts to suppress the details–admittedly not widespread and not very successful– usually don’t work and probably wouldn’t even if they were more seriously pursed. . Their main effect, in fact, may be to provide an additional thrill to those who, for whatever, perverse reason, actually enjoy pictures of violence and killing. The ones who are considered persuadable may not be so to a very great extent. Anyway, that’s how I perceive the opinions of officialdom. I doubt if they work much but, however hypocritical, they go on. A lot of “nice people” simply won’t look, they’ll simply tune into “Hallmark” and forget it..

The second thing about the Vietnam picture is actually, I think, more important in what it says about us as a people. One of the things that infuriates me most about capital punishment in our country is that millions of dollars are spent trying to figure out “humane” ways of doing this with drugs of some kind. Despite this US capital punishment nonetheless almost surely sometimes induces pain, perhaps torture. The Rev. Jeffrey Hood, who ministered to Smith in his last days, said he had no doubt that the thing was torture. He called it the most horrible thing he’d ever seen. And this could be so much simpler and humane(Yes, I know, each state would have to make its own law on this OR the US Supreme Court would have to set some boundaries–not easy and not impossible) But why not  something like the photograph shows? Tie the condemned in a chair. The executioner, standing by with a loaded pistol, would then shoot him in the side of the head at a range of about a foot. It would be over in a few seconds or less. Or he could use a large club which would be even quicker.

But something in the public mind rebels at this. I guess we want to think we’re too “nice” to do that–a violent act at close range in which the identity of the executioner is not hidden and for which everyone, to some extent is responsible. But, no, we want to hide it away–have it done by some kind of weird drug combination which may not work well and which may cause torture. But nobody gets blood on themselves, literally, in the process, or figuratively, and therefore the society feels itself less guilty

If you insist on drugs, how about a bit of common sense? Give them a huge overdose of one of the many drugs which are certain death if taken in excess and accompanied by a large amount of alcohol.  This would also, for what it’s worth, be less expensive. It would also put an end to drawn out legal cases over what form of execution should be allowed. So why not be both merciful and sensible and use one or more of the more humane choices? There are quite possibly other ways than those I have suggested. Feel free to make comments on that and think about the whole question. Let’s make executions in our country a thing of the past or at least so rare that they will almost never occur. And if that’s a long term plan or an impossible one , let’s make them less brutal.  It’s the kindest thing for everyone involved– including the “nice” people.