Post by Anja on Jun 15, 2006 16:09:51 GMT -5
Penalty promotes bloodlust
Anyone else wondering why we can't cut their heads off as the terrorists
do?
Or can't we at least shoot them between the eyes or in the stomach, where
I hear the pain is unbearable and death comes slowly, excruciatingly.
Maybe we should string them up and let the public mock them, taunt them,
during their final hours.
Maybe we should fire up "Old Sparky," skip the wet rag on the head like
the guy in "Green Mile" and watch them fry, so we can smell the burning
flesh and make sure they suffer at least as much as the person they
killed.
I'm talking about murderers. More specifically I'm talking about convicted
murderers. Let's throw in twice-convicted child molesters for good
measure.
One thing I've never understood is why the death penalty itself is not
cruel and unusual punishment but instead it's how we kill them that just
might be.
That's the kind of question the U.S. Supreme Court raised again in a
unanimous ruling Monday that essentially lets death row inmates argue that
death by lethal injection might be a violation of civil rights and
unconstitutional. Not because it kills, but because it might hurt before
it does.
A study has suggested the prisoner could experience pain even though they
are given a painkiller and a drug to cause paralysis before a 3rd is
administered to cause a fatal heart attack.
I wrote recently that the S.C. General Assembly did a disservice to a bill
designed to protect children by including a provision that makes some
twice-convicted sexual predators who attack those younger than 11 years
old eligible for the death penalty. (A 22-year-old man who allegedly
repeatedly raped an 82-year-old woman for 9 consecutive hours in
Charleston this week would not be eligible for such punishment.)
I tried to make a rational argument. Prosecutors said it was a bad
provision because it potentially puts sexual abuse victims at increased
risk.
Predators might be more likely to kill them rather than leaving behind a
potential witness. Recent research has shown why the death penalty is not
an effective crime deterrent.
Those rational arguments didn't matter to many of those who responded to
the column or those who are upset about the Supreme Court's ruling.
"As a parent I not only want someone that hurts children to die I want it
to be slow - drawn out and very painful," one reader said.
Why not cut the niceties and give those who are full of bloodlust what
they want and stop pretending it's justice we're after.
(source: Myrtle Beach Online)
Anyone else wondering why we can't cut their heads off as the terrorists
do?
Or can't we at least shoot them between the eyes or in the stomach, where
I hear the pain is unbearable and death comes slowly, excruciatingly.
Maybe we should string them up and let the public mock them, taunt them,
during their final hours.
Maybe we should fire up "Old Sparky," skip the wet rag on the head like
the guy in "Green Mile" and watch them fry, so we can smell the burning
flesh and make sure they suffer at least as much as the person they
killed.
I'm talking about murderers. More specifically I'm talking about convicted
murderers. Let's throw in twice-convicted child molesters for good
measure.
One thing I've never understood is why the death penalty itself is not
cruel and unusual punishment but instead it's how we kill them that just
might be.
That's the kind of question the U.S. Supreme Court raised again in a
unanimous ruling Monday that essentially lets death row inmates argue that
death by lethal injection might be a violation of civil rights and
unconstitutional. Not because it kills, but because it might hurt before
it does.
A study has suggested the prisoner could experience pain even though they
are given a painkiller and a drug to cause paralysis before a 3rd is
administered to cause a fatal heart attack.
I wrote recently that the S.C. General Assembly did a disservice to a bill
designed to protect children by including a provision that makes some
twice-convicted sexual predators who attack those younger than 11 years
old eligible for the death penalty. (A 22-year-old man who allegedly
repeatedly raped an 82-year-old woman for 9 consecutive hours in
Charleston this week would not be eligible for such punishment.)
I tried to make a rational argument. Prosecutors said it was a bad
provision because it potentially puts sexual abuse victims at increased
risk.
Predators might be more likely to kill them rather than leaving behind a
potential witness. Recent research has shown why the death penalty is not
an effective crime deterrent.
Those rational arguments didn't matter to many of those who responded to
the column or those who are upset about the Supreme Court's ruling.
"As a parent I not only want someone that hurts children to die I want it
to be slow - drawn out and very painful," one reader said.
Why not cut the niceties and give those who are full of bloodlust what
they want and stop pretending it's justice we're after.
(source: Myrtle Beach Online)