Research paper.

Last Name 1

Student Name

Dr. Kristin N. Riley

RHET 1302

Date

Shocked to Death

In 1890, the electric chair was born thanks to the Gerry Commission in the United States

and put to work the same year, in New York’s administration of capital punishment (Essig 245).

The electric chair models a simple design; it often has leather straps around the armrests, back,

and seat of the chair, a metal helmet electrode connecting to the scalp of the person seated, and

another electrode connecting to the their legs. This chair utilizes the alternating current (AC)

system to electrocute those who are secured in it (Gordan). Although not practiced by the

majority of the states in America now, from the mid-1800s to mid-1900s, the states that practiced

the death penalty adopted the electric chair to execute prisoners using electrocution (Martschukat

914). Prior to the creation of the electric chair, the most common form of execution in the United

States was hanging, but around the world, it consisted of the guillotine, axing, strangulation,

firing squads, burning, poisoning, etc. As these methods of execution were thought to be very

violent, since they can result in a slow and painful death, supporters of capital punishment were

afraid the death penalty would eventually be deemed as a “cruel and unusual punishment” and

written out of existence (Martschukat 913). To prevent this extinction, one supporter in

particular, Dr. Alfred Porter Southwick, sought to find an alternate method for legally killing

prisoners (Moran 70). He ultimately thought of death by electrocution because he believed that

the use of electricity, which was a fairly new discovery that society had considered very

powerful, was capable of swiftly killing those sentenced to death, thus making the death penalty

Last Name 2

more humane (Moran 71). Being a dentist and not knowing much about electricity, Southwick

requested the help of Thomas Edison, who at the time was competing in the “Current Wars” with

George Westinghouse over their patented currents; direct current or DC versus AC (Moran 74).

With Southwick’s work in the Gerry Commission and the aid of Thomas Edison’s knowledge

and secret contributions, the electric chair was made in 1890 and adopted into the justice system.

Unfortunately, though, for Southwick and those who supported the invention, the electric chair

did not last as a common tool used for the death penalty, as it was ironically recognized to be a

“cruel and unusual punishment” by the government almost a century later (Seitz 71). Through

the untimely occurrences of the hot-public-debate topic, concerning capital punishment, and the

“Current Wars” between Edison and his rival, the electric chair was brought into this world. The

creation and use of this invention desensitized society, in regards to death, and simultaneously

numbed and stirred conversation over the ethical and moral issues of the death penalty in the

United States.

While public hanging was the primary form of execution in the early 1800s, this caused

controversy as a vast amount of people came to view the executions as if “attending [a] show,

picnic basket in tow” (Capers 254). Prisoners were paraded to their deaths as the public

insensitively viewed the disturbing executions that could last up to forty-five minutes (Moran

68). These sore sights available to society, along with the increased want for privacy, eventually

brought up fueled debate over public executions. Talk of capital punishment then died down

once public execution in New York was abolished, but, this did not stay for long, since some

people began arguing that the death penalty should not even exist (Moran 68). Once again,

though, the public changed their minds when immigrants and crime rates increased in the states

and they preferred the death penalty to remain intact (Moran 68). This shows contradictory levels

Last Name 3

of sensitivity in society that persists through the history of the electric chair. The portion of the

public that argued against the death penalty eventually sided for the death penalty when it was

the ethnic minorities that were being sent to be executed (Moran 69). Following this situation

was the Civil War, and due to the focus on the war, people’s minds were too occupied to be

debating over the death penalty. But after the war, some looked at the topic again with a changed

perspective but more sensitive view of death and demanded a more humane way of killing

(Moran 69). Anti-gallows and death penalty organizations began gaining popularity and

opposingly sparked a fear of losing the death penalty in others (Seitz 39). This debate built up to

the point where scientists and others were beginning to get involved as they looked into many

other possible ways to execute someone (Moran 70).

A supporter of the death penalty, dentist Alfred P. Southwick, was especially motivated

to find an alternate method of execution in order to save capital punishment (Martschukat 912).

In 1881, Southwick “witnessed the accidental electrocution of a Buffalo drunkard” and “since

the man appeared to not suffer,” he wanted to incorporate this concept of electricity in the death

penalty (Moran 70). The bluntness in which Richard Moran, author of Executioner's Current:

Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, and the Invention of the Electric Chair, describes

Southwick’s experience with the electrocuted man, creates a matter-of-fact tone that is void of

emotions. This adds to the theme of insensitivity during the creation of the electric chair. By

1884, around election time, the public greatly demanded for something to be done about the

method of execution. In response, New York Lieutenant-Governor David Bernet Hill sought

important individuals and formed the Gerry Commission, in which he also recruited Southwick

(Moran 71). With the Commission grew Southwick’s obsession and “great enthusiasm” in

conducting “series of crude but deadly experiments” on animals (Moran 71). The contrasting

Last Name 4

diction provided by Moran emphasizes that Southwick’s goal or “enthusiasm” to use electricity

to “provide justice,” clouds his judgement over the reality of his doings: killing. Although, the

joy he supposedly feels is not derived from the murdering of innocent creatures, but rather his

discovery of using electricity for a “marvelously humane method of execution,” the fact remains

that he is not bothered by the deaths of the animals or the upcoming deaths to come with the

creation of the electric chair (Moran 71). Southwick was engrossed in the study of electricity

similar to Edison, “Benjamin Franklin and his contemporaries,” according to Martschukat,

author of the journal "The Art of Killing by Electricity: The Sublime and the Electric Chair,"

who “had tested the destructive power of electricity on animals” (909). This shows the vastness

of insensitivity that took place during the creation of the electric chair with many people going

around electrocuting living things in the name of science and “human progress.”

A little further into the development of the electric chair, Southwick had actually sent out

questionnaires to the public asking which form of execution they preferred (Moran 72). The

results tallied up to being predominantly in the category in which if a change had to be made to

the death penalty, they would prefer execution by electricity (Moran 73). At this point, people

still believed electricity would kill its victims painlessly and effortlessly so it is understandable

as to why the majority of society was willing to accept this as a form of execution as opposed to

the grueling hangings, but, Dr. J Mount Bleyer, a survey respondent, had sent in a full explicit

report explaining various more promising alternatives to the electric chair to Southwick (Moran

73). Bleyer suggested the use of morphine injections or chloroforming prisoners (which is

actually used today: lethal injections and gas chambers) but Southwick dismissed his ideas as he

was persistent and confident in his own working out (Moran 73). The dentist then needing

approval from the rest of his Commission to create the electric chair, sought the help of “the

Last Name 5

greatest electrician of modern times,” Edison (Moran 75). Upon first request, Edison had actually

rejected helping Southwick since he was actually against the death penalty (Moran 74). But after

Southwick appealed to Edison’s pride and sense of progress, Edison gave in with what will be

later be described as malicious or at least desensitized intent (Moran 74). Edison helped

Southwick determine the most powerful and deadly current to be used for the electric chair (AC)

and because of his “approval,” the Gerry Commission gladly accepted Southwick’s electric chair

invention (Moran 71-75). Through ignorance and subtle manipulation, Southwick pushed his

idea to be created just to keep the death penalty and also having the glory of having “saved” it.

His ignorance can be identified with his stubborn exchanges with Bleyer who actually presented

valuable alternatives yet Southwick down-right rejected them and he also manipulates Edison

into unintentionally becoming a famous-figure- head in the creation of the electric chair.

Although, Edison had been partially deceived to help Southwick with his glorification

goals, he also had his own selfish reasons to accept. Edison, at the time, was the “Current Wars,”

with his rival, George Westinghouse (Essig 11). He patented direct current (DC) while

Westinghouse patented alternating current (AC). AC current was far cheaper and was able to

reach long distances in a way “the vision of America could become reality” (Martschukat 906).

The fact that Westinghouse’s capable of doing what the country’s vision was and in all aspects

superior to Edison’s, was not fathomable to the “greatest electrician” so he went about to prove

how dangerous AC current was (Martschukat 915). Edison began “waging a propaganda

campaign” where he passed 1,000-volt AC current through “animals ranging in size from cats to

horses” with the same desensitized obsession as Southwick, Benjamin Franklin, and other

scientists (Gordou). While those others killed animals in the name of science, Edison did so in

the name of financial profit and pride. He also takes this a step further as he tells Southwick to

Last Name 6

use AC in the electric chair, in the name of “human progress.” Moran explores the various

reasons as to why Edison may have pushed aside his beliefs of the death penalty to help

Southwick, and narrows it down to the self-serving reason being that he wanted to discredit

Westinghouse’s AC and gain popularity for his own DC (62). Edison thought if people knew that

AC can be used to execute people then they will fear it and instead use DC for everyday

purposes, thus profiting from it financially and through pride since he had been using this

propaganda for so long. So he had actually donated/bribed prisons to use Southwick’s electric

chair to help publicize the “dangerous” AC (Gordon). But, unfortunately for him, the electric

chair and AC were “understood to give society a sense of elevation” since “electrocution was

widely perceived as an advance of civilization” during the initial uses (Martschukat 900). This

optimistic view of the electric chair did take a turn for the worse, but not until nearly a century

later because of how much society had become excited and then numb to the executions and

death penalty.

Once the electric chair was created, it was first used on August 6, 1890, in New York for

the execution of William Kemmler who was sentenced the death penalty for having murdered his

girlfriend (Martschukat 915). Being the first execution by electrocution, it “aroused intense

interest” in the neighboring areas and media and “political string-pulling” occurred to “secure

places among the 25 witnesses” (Gordon). This excitement out of context is normal, but seen

with the circumstances of death, it can be viewed to be morbid and insensitive on the part of

society. Despite the laws abolishing public executions, journalists “were eager to exploit the

sensational aspects of electrocution” so the public can experience “a virtual front-row seat” view

of the execution (Seitz 46). This eagerness, similar to that of Southwick’s when electrocuting

animals, is inappropriate since it is associated with the death of a living being but during this

Last Name 7

time, it was seen as normal because society had become desensitized through the creation of the

electric chair. The process of first execution began with Kemmler being strapped into the electric

chair in the room opposite of the witnesses viewing the execution through a one way glass

(Gordon). The executioner was also placed on the other side of the glass so the prisoner is unable

to see him (this was done so the executioner does not hold the burden of killing the prisoner

directly as they are pressing the button to send the current through their body). This method of

execution is incredibly dehumanizing the prisoner as they are strapped and tied down, unable to

view anyone during their last moments, and overall have no control over the situation. Just as

bad as the immoral practices of this killing, the actual execution was faulty. What should have

ended quickly and effortlessly, resulted in Kemmler suffering a “gruesome and prolonged death”

(Seitz 41). These were not the results the public was expecting-the electric chair was meant to be

more humane than hanging and technologically advanced-but they continued using it for a

century to come because society had become numb to all of the violent executions of the past.

Even though with more uses of the electric chair there were more successful executions, there

were also some terrible ones. This did not seem to bother other states such as Ohio,

Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia since they had “adopted electrocution” as the exclusive

method of execution (Seitz 38). Other states adopted the electric chair later on and the theme of

insensitivity was adopted with it. In 1997, after a mishap in executing through electrocution in

Florida, the Attorney General Robert Butterworth jokes that people who want to commit murders

should not do so in Florida as they “may have a problem with [their] electric chair” (Capers 250).

This statement lacks appropriate emotions given that a man’s head just caught on fire while

being executed. This insensitivity is best explained through Caper’s analysis of Andy Warhol’s

Electric Chair series in which he explains the “spectacle became a little redundant. We became a

Last Name 8

little anesthetized” (257). From the beginning of capital punishment, the death penalty is meant

to 1) punish the criminal and 2) prevent other crimes by showing the public the consequences of

misconducts, so they have the tendency to get violent (Moran 76). Because, society has

experienced such violence, they have become numb and insensitive to the dehumanizing aspects

of it.

Not until the mid-1900s was when the public reengaged in conversation of the ethics and

morality of capital punishment and the death penalty (Martschukat 913). A big part in stirring the

conversation was artist Warhol’s painting series called Electric Chair. This artist who is known

for vibrant repetitive pictures of “Campbell’s soup cans, Brillo boxes,” “Marilyn Monroe and

Elizabeth Taylor” takes on a different tone to his paintings with this grave series of an empty

electric chair in the center of an execution room (Capers 244). He claims that the emptiness and

vagueness “points to the anonymity of most executions and to our distance from them” (Capers

251) This analysis is reflects the history of the electric chairs, because the public had

dehumanized the prisoners as test subjects for this invention that remained an infamous star for

over a century. This simplistic artwork from 1964, similar to the simple design of the electric

chair, by Warhol encouraged the questioning of the effectiveness and morality of the death

penalty (Capers 243).

People did begin to question the death penalty, especially with the use of the electric

chair. In 1995, Nicholas Ingram was sentenced to death and his friend/attorney, Clive Smith,

viewed his execution by electrocution and reported back the awful experience and lies the prison

covered up for years (Smith). The electric chair had promised to provide an instantaneous death,

void of violence and pain. Smith challenges those promises by asking, “Why carry on cooking

him [then]?” or, “tie him down so tightly?” or, “bind his mouth firmly shut” (Smith). These

Last Name 9

broken promises are what led the electric chair to be declared as a “cruel and unusual

punishment.” Now, replacing the electric chair in most states is the lethal injection or gas

chamber, similar to those that Bleyer suggested over a century ago. Still in some states, like

Tennessee, Florida, and Virginia, the electric chair can be used in execution if the prison does

not have any drugs for lethal injection or by the prisoners’ choosing (Dockterman). The most

recent use of the electric chair was in 2013 during the execution of Robert Gleason Jr. in Virginia

upon his request (Owens). Gleason was not the only criminal to request execution by

electrocution; there were many before and also one currently in waiting. Wayne Doty, a prisoner

in Florida is currently on the death penalty list and has requested to be electrocuted rather than

injected with lethal drugs (Berman). His possible reasoning for this choice was due to the mild

scandals surrounding the drug used for lethal injections and also because he believes the electric

chair is the fastest and most humane form of execution (Berman). The death penalty still remains

a highly controversial subject between people who have lost sight of the killings and those that

are overly sympathetic. As society thinks it is moving forwards, in this case, it is really just

enhancing the primitive ways of killing.

Last Name 10

Works Cited

Berman, Mark. "Florida Inmate Asks to Be Executed by Electric Chair Rather than Lethal

Injection." The Washington Post. WP Company, 23 Oct. 2015. Web. 27 Apr. 2018.

Capers, Bennett. "On Andy Warhol's 'Electric Chair'." California law review 94.1 (2006): 243-60.

Print.

Dockterman, Eliana. "Tennessee Brings Back Electric Chair." Time.com (2014): 1-2. Print.

Essig, Mark. Edison & the Electric Chair: A Story of Light and Death. N.p.: Walker, 2005. Print.

Gordon, John Steele. "Thomas Edison's Deadly Game." American Heritage 51.6 (2000): 15-8.

Print.

Martschukat, Jürgen. ""The Art of Killing by Electricity": The Sublime and the Electric Chair." The

Journal of American History 89.3 (2002): 900-21. Print.

Moran, Richard. Executioner's Current: Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, and the Invention

of the Electric Chair. 1st ed.. ed. New York: New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002. Print.

Owens, Michael L. "Robert Gleason Got Death the Way He Wanted It."HeraldCourier.com. N.p.,

17 Jan. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2018.

Seitz, Trina N. "The Killing Chair." North Carolina Historical Review 81.1 (2004): 38-73. Print.

Smith, Stafford Clive. My Private View of a Ritual Death: To Witness the Death in the Electric

Chair of Nicky Ingram is to be Appalled by the Barbarity of this Method of Execution and

Outraged by the Flaws in the US System of Justice with its Inbuilt Cruelty to Prisoners.,

1995. Print.