Old habits die hard - 

People don't.

The Death Penalty in America is - besides increasingly pressing questions about legal deficiencies of its system, its arbitrary application, racial bias and other moral, ethical and religious concerns about it - an antiquated custom. 

In the early 20th century in some regions, especially southern states, lynching was a common practice of extra-judicial executions, predominately carried out against blacks. Between 1880 and 1930  3,220 blacks and 723 whites were lynched(1). When this practice became uncontrollable, public demand for swift executions grew up and led to a guarantee of judicial death sentences. 

Slight changes are to be considered since: in 2002 the state of Maryland imposed a Moratorium on executions, based on serious doubts on racial fairness in the states' use of the Death Penalty. In 1998, 81.8% of all inmates executed in the U.S. were convicted of the murder of a white, even though the rate of black and white victims of homicide is almost equal nationwide(3) . 

Of all murders committed in the US every year, less than 1% result in a death sentence for the alleged offender. Here, mainly poor and non whites get a taste of the full hardship of law. Not because their crimes are the most horrendous, but because they cannot afford adequate defense. 

Poverty, as an increasing social problem plays a gruesome role in the issue of capital punishment. 
It has to be considered that the social status of a person accused of a capital crime enables him or her to be eligible for the Death Penalty. 

So the old custom "Death Penalty" might have claimed an anonymous number of innocents who have been killed by the government. Is this acceptable? Is it acceptable to execute "one innocent person between 'XY' guilty people?"  Is this a so-called 'risk' society has to take the responsibility for? 

There are serious doubts on the law system to be mentioned. IF a nation that claims itself to be the "protector of global human rights" USES the Death Penalty, it should watch its own legal system very, very carefully, at least.

But - there are mistakes and an arbitrary use in and of Capital Punishment law  - one must be blind to ignore that. For example:

The system of the jury court

To prove that only unbiased jurors are elected to participate in a death penalty trial, the candidates are being asked in a selection procedure, the "voir dire". Individuals who are prejudiced for or against the accused person are sorted out during this trial phase. 

Another measure to protect the integrity of the trial is to keep the juror's discussions - held behind closed doors - from being part of the court's files in the trial. 

A new research from 1990, the "Capital Jury Project" (which is still going on) has examined interviews with more than 1,000 jurors who served in death penalty trials in 14 US states(5). 

While the results of this massive project are still in the early stages of review, the preliminary findings strongly indicate that former jurors were subjected to a wide range of misconceptions and prejudices which may undermine their ability to render reliable verdicts in capital cases(6).

The preliminary results of the study have revealed that some jurors simply lie with reference to their racial attitudes. For example: James Edward Jenkins was accepted on the jury that decided the guilt and sentence of Napoleon Beazley (executed in Texas in May 2002), a juvenile offender. 

During the jury selection he was asked by the judge: "I will instruct you not to let bias, prejudice or sympathy play any part in your deliberations... Can you follow that instruction?" Jenkins replied that he could. Attorneys later representing Beazley approached Jenkins to discuss the trial. He refused to talk to them, saying: "the state said that we don't have to say nothin' to nobody." While slamming the door, he added: "That nigger got what he deserved".

The US Supreme Court (named here the US S.C.) had to confess that racism can play a role in the jury selection. In 1986, the US S.C. had to rule that potential jurors could be asked about their attitudes on racism, since "because the range of discretion entrusted to a jury in a capital sentencing hearing, there is a unique opportunity for racial prejudice to operate...".

It is obvious that this can be transferred on poor white, Latin, Asian, Arabic and other offenders who have no political lobby. Because of the fear the authorities and the media initiate on the public, hysteria over crime is partly responsible for the support of the Death Penalty in today's America. 

It had reached its peak in the 1998 election. When the Republicans sensed that Michael Dukakis opposed the Death Penalty, Vice president George Bush did not hesitate to bring that up in debates and called it a weakness. His strategy worked and Bush won in a landslide. 

So the Democrats had learned their lesson when they brought up Bill Clinton who finally became President of the United States of America and was forced to move to the right. In 1994 he supported a reduction of death row appeals, called by the Republicans and in 1996 he cut off legal steps in capital case appeals. 

These activists - in America and the rest of the world - think that two fundamental human rights are: the Freedom of Speech and Independent Thought.

The current President of the United States claims himself to be a "Human Right believer" and protector (!). Other US- state governors are saying the same. 

They all say they want to protect society, human rights and the 'civilized world'. They want to be an example for the whole world. In Europe for example, the Death Penalty has been totally abolished during the 19^th and 20^th century, all countries in the European Union have voted against it. 

Quoting one mediocre American I corresponded with: "The difference is Europeans are taught HOW to think - most Americans are taught WHAT to think". 

Is this the truth? 

What is it like to strap a totally defenseless person on a gurney and stick needles into its veins which will lead toxic chemicals into a human's body? Chemicals which are made to kill a person are used to end a life. 

The industry (and even medics on government's pay rolls) say that the procedure is "humane" and working fast and that the chemicals are "safe" because they guarantee a quick death.

No one who has gone through this has survived, ever. So we do not know about the pain and the suffering this "humane" procedure of executing people implements. We only know that the convicted are dying in a neat, quite clinical atmosphere. 

The first drug pumped into their veins lets all muscles slacken, so that the face cannot show any movement. When the lungs collapse from the second injection, the breathing stops and all inner organs cramp in throes of death, until the heart finally stops working by the third injection... 

The search for "humane" methods of execution. 

First of all, we have to ask the following question: are executions generally eligible to be accepted as "humane"? Or does the whole issue depend on the methods used? 

Are the modern lethal injections more humane than the "antiquated" stonings or beheadings in Saudi Arabia or the Iraq, for example? 

When the amount of so-called "botched executions" by electrocution or gassing increased and reports of horrible, unbelievable gruesome executions were published, (most famous case: the electrocution of "Tiny" Davis" published on the internet by a judge), American authorities rushed to impose "smoother ways of execution". 

This has resulted in the currently common execution method of "lethal injection" which is declared to be a humane and swift way to put an individual from life to death. 

Over 830 men and women have been executed since the Death Penalty was re-established in 1972.

Authorities are trying to convince those who lost a loved one from homicide, that the government is punishing the perpetrators in their purpose, but interviews with victims' relatives have revealed that the death of the condemned is not the last step to find peace, again, as they often believe. 

Revenge, even if it is an old and allegedly effective custom, cannot be the used as a reason to punish those who have killed. No crime happens without external circumstances which must be considered and proved, when a prosecutor summons the Death Penalty before a court. 

Society's responsibility on the protection of every human life and universal human rights is as high as its right to demand effective crime protection from its government. 

But while millions of dollars are being spent on bringing SOME alleged perpetrators from life to death, less money is given to projects which try to prevent crime in social "boiling points". High Schools which are considered a "troubled area" because of violence are being monitored by digital cameras and security guards. 

But there are no programs or activities offered to the kids. It is forbidden to them to carry weapons, but they are not being educated in violence-prevention. Americans are allowed to carry arms by the 2nd Amendment. 

Many of them insist on which right they understand as their right to protect themselves, their families and their property. 

Another american tradition that costs human lives: the fear of crime - liven up by mass media - has lead to an unparalleled armament of American citizens: 

around 25,000 000 fire arms are kept in private property, more than 11,000 people are being shot every year in the USA. The Death Penalty does not prevent these 11,000 deaths. 

It is to be suspected that the politicians in charge in the USA definitely don't want to support or impose a change in their Death Penalty system. They seem to love it too much to give it up. 

Or are they just trying to get an increasing public acceptance on executions, because the modern system seems to find methods to kill without torture? 

"Lethal injection is perceived as the most humane by the vast majority (81.9 %) of pro respondents and by the majority of anti respondents who replied to this question. It is the most modern and least gruesome form of execution. 

There are, however, a significant number of people who feel that criminals should be made to suffer something worse -

 81.9% think injection is the least cruel but only 51.7% think it should be the method used. 

"Lethal injection would be the majority choice with shooting and hanging being the second and third choices of male respondents. Hanging is seen as the cruelest method by women and the gas chamber the cruelest by men.

Almost 80% of women would select lethal injection, but rather surprisingly only just over half the men who responded would, 21.6% selecting shooting (7). 

"America other than Texas hardly executes anyone and it is getting to the stage where people have to volunteer for it in most states. Florida has had 53 executions since 1977 - hardly a lot for a large state. 

Capital punishment is supported by two out of three Americans (especially by the young) so it is a democratic choice and is typically only applied to the "worst" murderers (7a)". End of quote.

Although public support for the Death Penalty is constantly decreasing the voices of those who call out for abolition is still not broadcasted in the media. Tradition before real justice! Is this the message America has to tell the civilized world? 

Or is it real that "the Americans" are being taught WHAT to think, while the Europeans, e.g. are being taught HOW to think? 

Last but not least, it seems like there are some old fashioned people in the United States of America who don't want to grapple with the idea of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (that forbids the Death Penalty as a cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment) and who are enabled to control a whole nation's thinking in that issue. 

What a sad reflection!