Should Executions Be Televised?

Six hours before convicted murderer Thomas M. Thompson was scheduled to be executed in San Quentin last week, the U.S. Supreme Court halted the process when it agreed to review the controversial case.

The case, which has drawn widespread media attention, has reinvigorated the debate about capital punishment.

It also comes at a time when the television networks are being pressured by Congress and the public to control violent program content. Televising executions has been proposed before by those who say the public has a right to monitor all government proceedings.

Opponents of televised executions cite the potential impact of such an event on children.

Should executions be televised?

Stephen F. Rohde, constitutional lawyer and member of the board of directors of the Southern California ACLU:

“I’m in favor of televising executions, with the consent of the inmate and his family. I believe that the American public must confront the barbarity of capital punishment. We cannot hide from the fact that in our names as the People, this state deliberately and consciously kills. By the same token, we have a strong value of privacy in this country, and were a man or woman to object to being seen at this worst moment of their lives, then they have that right. We also have a strong 1st Amendment principle at stake in the public seeing what the state is doing.”

Rex Heinke, 1st Amendment lawyer:

“Like other government proceedings, [executions] should be open to the public. Taking the life of a human being is one of the most important acts government can engage in. The public is entitled to and should be aware of the consequences of the government executing people for serious crimes . . . Some people believe that televising executions will lead to their prohibition, while others believe that televising them will deter crime . . . Whatever the effect, citizens should know and understand what government is doing in their name, and reach their own decision as to whether that is right or wrong. That’s what a democracy is all about.”

Mary Broderick, executive director, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice:

“I’m opposed to the idea of televising executions because I believe it’s a further attempt to exploit and dehumanize the inmate for the financial profit of the media and for political reasons. I certainly think that if there is a decision that executions should be televised, that the inmate and his or her family should have the option to block [it]. It should not be up to the state. But the fact that this discussion even takes place points to the folly and inhumanity of the state killing its own citizens.”

Jerry Offsay, president of programming, Showtime Networks:

“I wouldn’t televise an execution and I would hope that others, despite the pull of ratings or dollars, would feel similarly. From issues of the impact it could have on a child, to who could be watching, to the invasion of privacy of the inmate and too many other reasons to count, I would oppose [televising executions]. Barbarous is the word that best sums it up, in my opinion.”

On the Issue appears every Tuesday. Send suggestions for possible topics to the Valley Edition, Los Angeles Times, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth 91311. Or fax them to (818) 772-3338. Or e-mail them to valley@latimes.com