Salt Lake City, Utah (CNN) — The executioner says he was eager to join the firing squad.
Not because he was familiar with the 1996 case, or felt the need to deliver justice for a raped and murdered little girl.
It wasn’t even because his high school classmate was raped and killed just before graduation.
So why did he do it? Why choose to join four other men in executing a convicted murderer?
“How often does this come along?” he says, “… 100 percent justice.”
It’s been more than 14 years since guns were last fired in Utah’s execution chamber. But later this month, they may sound again, reviving a debate about the death penalty and the methods used to carry it out. […]
The officer agreed to recount his experience because he believes in the death penalty — and thinks the firing squad method is plagued by misconceptions.
It is not like the scenes depicted in movies, with a condemned man tied to a stake and smoking a last cigarette before being riddled with bullets in a gruesome spectacle. Instead, he says over coffee, toast with grape jelly and an omelet, the process is instantaneous and carried out with the utmost professionalism.
“It was anti-climactic,” he says. “Another day at the office.” (emphasis mine)
Odd…if someone who is captive and restrained still deserves death, then why the “another day at the office” portrayal? Isn’t the entire logic behind the death penalty that they’ve proven themselves subhuman? The rhetoric in defense of it hints that even something as old-school as guillotine beheading would be justified in their eyes. Why is it not?
I think though many like eye-for-an-eye in principle, open embrace of it is too ugly to maintain pop status. It’s yet another issue the implications of which are never thought through. Call it a hunch.