KDMARTINKY wrote:You know that this subject is very interesting to me and is one that I am strongly opinionated on (if you can believe that). 1) The scriptures state and eye for an eye, and then; 2) vegeance is mine saith the Lord.
One thing that has always bothered me regarding our criminal/judicial system is that if I go and kill a person in front of 100 witnesses and the gun is still smoking and in my hand. There is no doubt that I was the one who created the crime. Why in the heck give me a trial. I sould either get a State provided cell for the rest of my life or Death, but not a trail.
I do believe strongly that with the avg, cost of an inmate per year being $30,000, you are going to see a lot more death penalties being passed down.
I at one time had the idea of having the national guard (who at one time did very little on drill weekends) hold public firing squads on primetime TV. My thinking was if you made an execution real for people that it would curve the crime rate.
Just some thoughts on the subject.
Some observations on both sides of the issue:
1. The reason there must be a trial is the 14th amendment due
process clause, which states that no state can deprive any
person of life, liberty or property without Due Process of law.
2. By the way, if you shot somebody before a hundred witnesses,
in most states you couldn't get the DP--because there needs
to be an aggravating circumstance, something that makes
the crime especially heinous, e.g. mulitple murder, torturing
people to death, murder committed during another felony
(e.g. armed robbery). This is a feature of virtually all state DP
statutes, which are in place to satisfy the Supreme Court.
In short, I could shoot just about any single individual I please, except
a police officer, and be safe from the DP. Notice that
the lady scheduled for execution was convicted of
killing three people.
4. The DP is considerably more expensive than life without
parole, largely because an automatic appeal is required
of every sentence and conviction (a large number of both
are reversed on appeal, in fact). In addition there is the
expense of maitaining a death row, etc. We could put a lot
more police on the streets by abolishing the DP
and dedicating the money to stopping crime. In
this way, the DP is dangerous to everybody.
5. The justificiation for the DP isn't that the murderer
is a monster. Timothy McVeigh wasn't a monster, nor
did the jury that sent him to his death think he was.
They actually rather liked him, persoanlly, in fact.
The chief justification for the DP is that some acts are
so heinous that justice requires death, like blowing
up 200 people in a terrorist attack, or dragging
a black man to death behind a truck. Otherwise we
treat the murderer so much more favorably than
he treated his victims that we become accomplices.
6. It makes some sense to be skeptical of the argument
given in behalf of this texas lady by the anti-death penalty
organization Dale quoted. There is the real possibility
that there is another side to the story (obviously there
is a real possibility they are spot on, too).
For one thing this woman was probably convicted at least
fifteen years ago, the triple murder happening
in 1987. Why all this activity now? A stay of execution
now so that the evidence can be considered?
What has happened in the last fifteen years?
Given the source, one does want to check deeper
before accepting their version.
P. S. Many states have, as an alternative sentence to the DP
in capitol cases, life without
parole. Louisiana has this, for instance. There's no mystery
as to how to get it. Legislatures pass such laws when
people insist that legislators do it.
.
