VOLUNTARY
EXECUTION
FOLLOWED BY ORGAN DONATION
SYNOPSIS:
Voluntary execution could replace all forms of
capital punishment.
Instead of putting people to death against their will
for the crimes they have committed,
we can sentence them to life imprisonment
with the option of voluntary
execution after at least one year in
prison.
Murderers who admit their crimes should be offered
an additional means of making amends:
They should be permitted to
donate their organs after
execution,
so that a few people who would otherwise die from organ failure
would be given a new lease on life.
OUTLINE:
1. VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
2. SAFEGUARDS TO MAKE CERTAIN
THE CHOICE OF
DEATH IS REALLY
VOLUNTARY.
A. Clear and Consistent
Confession of the Crimes.
B. Clear and Consistent Wish to End
One's Life by Voluntary Execution.
C. Ten Other Safeguards Used
for Ordinary Life-Ending Decisions.
3. ORGAN DONATION WILL TAKE PLACE
AFTER EXECUTION AND
CERTIFIED DEATH.
4. A NEW DEFINITION OF DEATH MIGHT BE NEEDED:
PERMANENT
UNCONSCIOUSNESS.
5.
BRAIN-DEATH MIGHT HAVE TO BE DECLARED.
6. PROCEDURES FOR HARVESTING ORGANS
AFTER VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
7. SEVEN LIVES CAN BE SAVED BY ONE VOLUNTARY EXECUTION
FOLLOWED BY
DONATING ALL THE VIABLE ORGANS.
VOLUNTARY
EXECUTION
FOLLOWED BY ORGAN DONATION
by James Leonard Park
The death-penalty is older than civilization.
Even before the beginning of recorded history,
we have evidence of human beings killing other human beings
who belonged to their own group or tribe.
Some of these executions were probably for crimes such as murder.
During historic times, we have actual records
of people who were put to death for their evil behavior.
Each civilization defines certain crimes as so terrible
that the perpetrators of such crimes deserve to die.
But in modern times, there has been a distinct turn
away
from "capital punishment", as the penalty of death is sometimes called.
Much has been made of mistakes
and distortions
of the criminal-justice systems on the planet Earth
which have resulted in people being executed
who should have been allowed to live.
But future civilizations could replace
the death-penalty
with voluntary execution.
Might it be possible to create a system of voluntary execution
that would be so fool-proof
that even some of the people
who previously opposed the death penalty
would embrace this new form of
punishment?
1. VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
When Socrates was found guilty of corrupting the
youth of Athens,
he was offered two options: exile or voluntary execution.
He could live the rest of his life away from his homeland.
Or he could drink the hemlock and die.
He chose to drink the hemlock.
As far as we can discover from Plato's account of
the death of Socrates,
there was no coercion
to force hemlock down Socrates' throat.
He freely accepted the execution offered to him,
even tho he did not agree that he had been corrupting the youth of
Athens.
In our time, voluntary execution should first be
offered
to people who really have committed capital crimes
—and
who freely confess their crimes.
After a few examples of murderers who chose their
own
dates of execution,
we might open the more surprising option
of voluntary execution for other
prisoners.
Should we allow the option of voluntary execution
to all prisoners who
would otherwise spend the rest of their lives in prison?
For example, after conviction and sentencing,
imprisoned terrorists could be permitted to choose voluntary execution.
They could spend the rest of their natural lives in prison
or they could end their lives after at least one year of imprisonment
by choosing the option of voluntary execution.
Voluntary execution could be exercised at any time
in the prisoner's life.
Some prisoners would probably decide to live for several years in prison
and then to end their lives by means of voluntary execution
when they were nearing the natural
end of their lives.
Under any system of voluntary execution,
the prisoner should
decide the date of execution.
2. SAFEGUARDS TO
MAKE CERTAIN
THE CHOICE OF DEATH IS REALLY
VOLUNTARY.
We should create safeguards for voluntary execution
to make certain that the choice of death is truly free.
Some opponents of all forms of execution
will insist that no prisoner
is able to make a free choice to
die.
Could the initial opponents of this plan create workable safeguards
they would find satisfactory to prove
that the prisoner is making a
completely free choice
—no
manipulation, no coercion,
& no defect of thinking that might lead to a premature death?
Another way to look at this possible problem with
voluntary execution
is to ask how we can prevent prisoners from committing suicide.
Irrational suicide is probably a very common impulse
among prisoners
with long sentences.
How can we prevent suicidal prisoners from using 'voluntary execution'
as a way of committing irrational suicide?
With good safeguards to
prevent irrational suicide,
this possible misuse of voluntary execution
should not be an insurmountable barrier.
When the prisoner requests voluntary execution,
he or she would explain the reasons for this choice,
assuring the authorities who must carry out any voluntary
execution
that this choice is a rational
and free decision to die.
A. Clear and Consistent
Confession of the Crimes.
Our modern criminal-justice system is aware
that sometimes people confess
to crimes they did not,
in fact, commit.
Therefore, it is necessary to present evidence of the crime
that goes beyond the confession of the person charged.
The confession might have been manipulated or coerced in some way.
Sometimes people confess to protect loved ones who did the crime.
And sometimes these false confessions were unnecessary
because the relative under suspicion did not commit the crime
either.
False
confessions must be ruled out
before any criminal conviction is handed down.
And even during the term of imprisonment,
the system should keep looking for false confessions.
Murderers are asked to reveal facts about their
crimes
that only someone who was actually present could have known.
Physical evidence at the scene might prove who did the crime.
When both the evidence and the confession point in
the same direction,
then we should feel confident about going ahead with voluntary execution
if death is the punishment chosen by the confessed criminal.
Sometimes people charged with crimes confess
—and
later recant their
confessions.
The psychology of such situations can sometimes be quite complicated.
For this reason, the confession must be clear and consistent.
This means that over a period of several months,
the person convicted of the crimes continues to confess
that he or she did
the crimes for which he or she was justly
convicted.
B. Clear and Consistent Wish
to End
One's Life by Means of Voluntary Execution.
Once a prisoner has settled into life in prison,
he or she could consider the option of voluntary execution
at any date at least one year after sentencing.
Or after the first formal request for death,
should the prisoner have at least one year to reconsider?
Setting the date of execution for at least one year later
should provide enough time to work out any problems.
The chosen date of execution could be
any time during the expected term of imprisonment
—up
to and including during the final illness of the prisoner.
A simple and sensible way to make sure that the
prisoner
really wants to choose voluntary execution
is to have him or her write a letter by hand each month for at least 12
months,
admitting the crimes and re-affirming the desire to die by voluntary
execution.
Each expression of guilt and the desire for
voluntary execution
must be a fresh re-statements of the facts of the crime
and the decision to choose voluntary execution.
Merely copying previous statements would not be satisfactory proof
that the prisoner is making a new decision this month.
Each month the prisoner must freely
admit the crime in whatever detail would be appropriate
and choose voluntary execution as the final punishment.
These freely-written letters should be sent to
someone
who is completely neutral
on all issues related to this case.
This should not be a
public official
or anyone associated with the
criminal-justice system.
Judges and wardens can usually be trusted.
However, such persons who are parts of the criminal-justice system
should not
be used because of even the smallest doubt
concerning their involvement in choosing voluntary execution.
One method to ensure these are free
expressions of the prisoner
is to have him or her send similar letters (not
photocopies)
to three
or more trusted persons outside the system each month.
These persons should remain available to testify
that they did indeed
receive the letters
on the dates indicated in the letters and the postmarks on the
envelopes.
Copies of such letters requesting voluntary execution
might also be sent to outside organizations opposed to capital
punishment.
And these organizations might try to change the mind
of the prisoner,
convincing him or her that dying is not the best option.
If someone can think of better ways of documenting
the prisoner's consistent wish to die by means of voluntary execution,
let all such suggestions be implemented if they are
workable.
In what other ways could a prisoner prove
that he or she is freely and wisely choosing a voluntary execution?
Would video
statements be
convincing than hand-written letters?
Or could the prisoner make recorded telephone statements
indicating his or her continuing desire to die by voluntary
execution
for crimes that he or she really did commit?
If there is any reason to doubt the prisoner's
decision-making capacity,
then a professional in some relevant field of psychology
could be called upon to evaluate the state-of-mind of the prisoner
—confirming
both that the prisoner really did the crime
and that the prisoner can make a wise decision for voluntary
execution.
This
question is explored in more detail in the following on-line essay:
"Can a Prisoner Ever Make a Free Choice?"
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/FREE-PRI.html
C. Ten Other Safeguards
Used
for Ordinary Life-Ending Decisions.
A related on-line article discusses 10 additional
safeguards
that might be applied to make sure that every voluntary execution
is really a free and uncoerced decision by the confessed murderer:
"Voluntary
Execution: Better than Capital Punishment?".
Here these additional safeguards will simply be
named and linked.
"Voluntary
Execution: Better than Capital Punishment?"
explains further how each applies to the option of voluntary
execution:
B. REQUESTS
FOR
DEATH FROM THE
PATIENT
C. THE
PATIENT
IS
MENTALLY CAPABLE OF MAKING A LIFE-ENDING DECISION
H.
UNBEARABLE
PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING
J.
INFORMED
CONSENT FROM THE PATIENT
K.
REQUESTS
FOR
DEATH
FROM THE PROXIES
N.
STATEMENTS
FROM FAMILY
MEMBERS
AFFIRMING
OR
QUESTIONING CHOOSING DEATH
O.
A
MEMBER
OF THE
CLERGY
APPROVES OR QUESTIONS CHOOSING DEATH
R.
STATEMENTS
FROM
ADVOCATES FOR
DISADVANTAGED GROUPS
IF
INVITED BY
THE PATIENT AND/OR THE PROXIES
U. WAITING
PERIODS FOR REFLECTION
V.
OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THE PATIENT
TO
RESCIND OR
POSTPONE ANY LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS
3. ORGAN DONATION WILL
TAKE
PLACE
AFTER EXECUTION AND
CERTIFIED DEATH.
Living
prisoners have long volunteered for medical experiments.
But this must be sharply separated from organ donation from the dead.
Some paired organs such as kidneys,
regenerating organs such as parts of the liver,
& regenerating fluids such as blood and blood-products
can be donated without harm to the donor.
But when we are talking about donating a heart—or
other vital organs—
we know that it is not possible for the donor to live without
those organs.
Therefore, we do not harvest such organs from people who are still
alive.
Any such harvesting
from living donors would cause their deaths.
In the case of voluntary execution,
the prisoner who has repeatedly agreed to being executed
can also (separately) agree to donate his or her
reusable organs, tissues, & fluids
after death.
The voluntary execution must take place at a
recordable time
and place.
A licensed physician must certify in writing that the prisoner is now dead.
Only after death has been certified and recorded
should the prisoner's body pass into the hands of transplant surgeons
who will then proceed to remove the organs that can save other lives.
The time between the certification of death
and the donation of organs
can be mercifully short.
But there must be some separation between death and donation.
This fulfills the dead-donor rule in transplant medical practice.
See
The
Dead-Donor Rule: How Dead Do You Have to Be?
Because the date of voluntary execution can
be set months in advance,
the transplant team can prepare to harvest the reusable organs.
And the suffering people who will receive the organs
can also be identified and prepared.
But these preparations do not eliminate the prisoner's
right to rescind or postpone
the
choice of voluntary execution
up until the last moment of consciousness.
4. A NEW DEFINITION OF
DEATH
MIGHT BE NEEDED:
PERMANENT
UNCONSCIOUSNESS.
Some methods of voluntary execution will
harm the donated organs
more than other means of bringing death.
For example, we would not want lethal drugs in donated
organs.
Likewise, electrocution
would damage the organs beyond any
further use.
A firing squad could be told just where to aim,
but this would still seem a barbaric method of killing,
especially when the prisoner has agreed to donate organs
after death.
The best means of voluntary execution might be general
anesthesia.
But the purpose of administering these drugs to cause unconsciousness
would be different from the purpose in all other surgeries:
Here the drugs would be intended to create a sleep so deep
that the prisoner would have no
possibility of ever awakening.
Another doctor besides the anesthesiologist
could know the dose of
drugs used
and could certify that the
prisoner is now dead
because of permanent
unconsciousness.
Some neurological tests might be included
to make sure that
consciousness could never return.
This new definition of death will require new
thinking in medical ethics,
but there are other good reasons for allowing at least some people
to choose permanent unconsciousness as their preferred definition of
death.
Here is a bibliography of books exploring new definitions of death:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/B-DEF-D.html
The present
author's preferred definition of death is permanent
unconsciousness,
as explained in his Advance Directive for Medical Care:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/AD-OUT-NET.html
Scroll down to:
Question
19:
Which definition of death
should apply to you? 152
A.
Brain-Death.
153
B. Coma or Permanent
Unconsciousness.
154
C. Persistent Vegetative
State.
155
Surgeons are very familiar with operating on
unconscious bodies.
This has been the general practice of surgery for well over a century.
(Before then, surgeons had to be assisted by several strong men,
who held the patient down while the surgeon cut as quickly as
possible.
And the most talented surgeons were those
who could complete their cutting and sewing within a few short minutes.
And, of course, many patients died from the trauma of the surgery
itself.)
Nowadays, anesthesia can keep the patient in such a
deep sleep
that he or she will never
feel a thing,
no matter how extensive the surgery must be.
If a neurologist can certify that the prisoner
has been rendered unconscious to such a deep degree
that it would be impossible
for consciousness ever to return to this
body,
then the law could allow this physician to declare the prisoner dead.
Any determination and certification of death must be
independent
of whatever might happen to the body after death.
The warden of the prison will have fulfilled his or her function
of overseeing the execution:
The prisoner is completely
and
irrevocably dead.
An execution
has been achieved in fulfillment of the law.
5. BRAIN-DEATH MIGHT HAVE TO
BE
DECLARED.
If permanent unconsciousness is not an acceptable
definition of death,
then the prisoner who is volunteering for execution
might have to be rendered brain-dead
before organ-donation could proceed.
Brain-death is universally acknowledged as a
sufficient condition
for proceeding with organ donation.
And "brain-death" has become a widely-used expression
in medical ethics, organ-transplantation, & even the mass media.
People who might oppose harvesting organs
from prisoners who have been rendered permanently unconscious
would probably have no such objections
to harvesting organs from prisoners who are certified to be brain-dead.
And if we pay attention to how the mass media will
cover such events,
donation from a "brain-dead" murderer will arouse less public
opposition
than accepting organs from a murderer who is permanently
unconscious.
Thus, the first voluntary executions to be followed
by organ donation
will probably have to require that the prisoner be declared brain-dead
before any organ-transplants can take place.
Also medical personnel do not always accept modern
medical ethics.
Some nurses, for example, might refuse to participate in a transplant
from an inmate who is certified
to be permanently unconscious.
But these same medical people would not object to recycling the organs
of an inmate who has been certified
to be brain-dead.
When brain-death has been declared by a doctor (or several doctors),
everyone must agree that the prisoner is absolutely and permanently dead.
Experienced transplant-teams should have no problems
harvesting organs
from a body that has been certified to be brain-dead.
In fact, this is their preferred
way to receive transplantable organs:
The organs are
kept alive in the body of a
brain-dead donor.
With mechanical assistance, the heart is still beating,
the lungs are still breathing, and the body is still warm.
The practical differences might be small.
But philosophical and religious beliefs do count for something
when we are dealing with the end of a human life.
A permanently unconscious donor
would look like any
other patient anesthetized for surgery.
There would be at least one tube attached to the body.
And a brain-dead body might have several forms of
'life-support'.
What degree of death is required for organ donation?
See: The
Dead-Donor Rule: How Dead Do You Have to Be?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/CY-DEADD.html
6. PROCEDURES FOR
HARVESTING
ORGANS
AFTER
VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
Wherever laws require executions to
take place inside prisons,
these laws could be modified (or exceptions could be made)
as needed for the purpose of allowing
organ-donation.
The prisoner should be asked one last time
if he or
she
wishes to rescind or postpone
the decision for voluntary execution,
which will be followed by organ
donation.
If the prisoner is still willing to go forward with these plans,
the prisoner can be put under constant
sedation
so that he or she will never have another thought or feeling.
A licensed physician will certify the time of death.
In fulfillment of the criminal law, a voluntary execution has taken
place.
The body can then be transported to the medical center
where the organs will be
harvested.
In order to assure a tasteful transition from life
to death
and in order not to traumatize the surgeons and nurses
who must care for the prisoner's body after voluntary execution,
could the body be kept unconscious, beginning while still in prison?
Then the transplant center would only receive a comatose body,
similar to the many bodies they already deal with
who were victims of tragic accidents.
These mangled bodies are keep under sedation
in order to prevent even a moment of suffering.
And some victims of accidents have
already
been declared brain-dead.
Likewise, the prisoner who has chosen voluntary
execution
will never be awake
in the transplant center.
And so, he or she will never have been known at the medical center
as anything other than a body—never
known as a living
person.
There will be some medical personnel
who want nothing to do with
voluntary execution.
And, of course, they
will be allowed to absent themselves
from any part of the care of the comatose or brain-dead prisoner.
Only those nurses and doctors who voluntarily agree to participate
will be part of any of the
procedures.
These medical professionals see the great benefits
to the living
from allowing organ-donation even from confessed criminals
who have freely chosen voluntary execution as their way to meet death.
Another possible similarity between voluntary
execution
and other pathways towards death is the practice of terminal sedation.
It is now possible to keep a
dying patient completely unconscious
until natural death occurs.
The medical knowledge learned from inducing terminal coma
might be applied to the situation of voluntary execution.
Once it
becomes absolutely certain that this brain
will never have another moment of consciousness,
will never have another thought or feeling
—or
even a dream-like experience—
then death can be declared
on the basis of permanent coma.
And the planned organ-donation can proceed.
(In order to prevent the crime-fiction scenario
of voluntary execution being used as a ruse to escape,
some representatives of the prison staff might have to be present
to make sure that the unconscious prisoner is not rescued by others
before permanent and irrevocable
unconsciousness is achieved
—that
is, up until the official moment of execution.
Once death has been determined and certified by an independent doctor,
the time and date of death will be recorded
and the prison guards can
leave.)
In order to identify the best recipients for the organs
to be donated,
there will probably be a period of perhaps a few days
in which the body of the executed prisoner
will be evaluated in the transplant center.
This is similar to evaluating the bodies of other
brain-dead donors.
Now that the prisoner has officially been declared dead,
which of the patients waiting for transplantable organs
will make best use of
these organs newly available?
Here is the final scene for this scenario of
voluntary execution followed by organ donation.
The steps must proceed in this order:
(1) The final drugs are administered to the prisoner being executed.
(2) Permanent coma has been certified.
(Or brain-death has
been certified.)
(3) Death has been declared on the basis of permanent coma.
(Or brain-death has been declared and
recorded.)
(4) The time and place of execution have been recorded.
(5) Then the organs of the dead-donor can be transplanted.
Even more details about these possible procedures will be found here:
"Brain-Death
Protocol for
Voluntary Execution followed
by Organ Donation":
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/BDP-VX.html
7. SEVEN LIVES CAN BE
SAVED BY
ONE VOLUNTARY EXECUTION
FOLLOWED BY
DONATING ALL THE VIABLE ORGANS.
When talking with the potential donor,
no physical or financial benefits to the prisoner will be offered.
The donations after voluntary execution cannot benefit the prisoner.
But he or she can offer life-saving benefits
to patients who would otherwise die.
The voluntary execution of the prisoner
can finally lead to something
good.
The donor will no longer be alive to know personally
those who will benefit from his or her anatomical gifts.
But he or she can know in advance
that voluntary execution followed by
organ-donation
can be the greatest gift he or she ever offered to anyone else.
How many prisoners will take advantage of this possibility
of redeeming themselves by giving up their lives?
Who else ever has the
possibility of saving up to seven lives
with one
self-sacrificing decision?
These benefits of
organ-donation bear repeating:
By one choice, the prisoner can be certain to save several other lives.
These patients waiting for transplants will otherwise die
because there are never enough organs to save everyone in need.
The voluntary execution of the confessed prisoner is one death
accepted.
But this choice saves
several other people from certain death.
Who else can know for certain that sacrificing his or her own life
will save the lives of so many other people?
Created
5-29-2009; Revised 6-4-2009; 6-6-2009; 6-11-2009; 9-3-2009; 9-10-2009;
9-14-2009;
3-1-2010; 3-19-2010; 2-5-2011; 11-11-2011;
4-20-2012; 10-3-2012;
10-10-2012; 3-24-2013; 9-6-2013;10-3-2013;
2-3-2014; 1-21-2015; 9-1-2016; 1-31-2018; 3-29-2019;
AUTHOR:
James Leonard Park is an independent
philosopher,
living and writing in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Much more about him will be discovered on his website:
James
Leonard Park—Free
Library
See closely-related on-line articles:
"Voluntary
Execution: Better than Capital Punishment?"
"Can
a
Prisoner Ever Make a Free Choice?"
"Brain-Death
Protocol for
Voluntary Execution followed
by Organ Donation"
ORGANS FROM THE EXECUTED
This
is the first essay (drafted in 2001) by James Park about
organ-donations from death-row.
ORGAN
DONATION AFTER EXECUTION
This is a portal linking to many other resources on the Internet.
A Facebook Page has been created:
Prisoner
Organ Donation.
This group welcomes participation by anyone
interested in organ
donation from prisoners:
prisoners who have Internet access, family members, friends,
lawyers, prison authorities, transplant surgeons, medical ethicists,
journalists, & students.
The
above essay recommending that voluntary execution be followed by
organ-donation
has now become Chapter 2 of Organ
Donation After
Execution.
This Internet
Book was discussed chapter-by-chapter
on Prisoner
Organ Donation
in 2014.
Go to other
on-line
essays by James Park,
organized into 10 subject-areas.