Post by SoulTrainOz on Jul 9, 2006 21:04:39 GMT -5
revenge
Another unspeakable crime.
Another call for Michigan to kill those who kill others.
It's an understandable gut reaction.
But it's not for us.
A bill introduced last month in the state Legislature would ask voters whether we would want a death penalty for the crime of 1st-degree, premeditated murder.
It would make Michigan something it never has been.
A death penalty state.
Michigan is considered one of the 1st English-speaking governments in the world to formally ban the death penalty for murder, in 1846. Executions weren't allowed here since before Michigan became a state in 1837.
Now, Rep. Dan Acciavatti, R-Chesterfield, wants the House and Senate to agree to put before voters an amendment to the state constitution allowing state executions for murder.
It was in his legislative district, in New Baltimore, that Patrick Selepak tortured and then killed a couple in a horrific murder spree in February.
Melissa Berels was choked.
Scott Berels was injected with bleach.
Life in prison just doesn't seem punishment enough for that brand of inhumanity.
So we toy with the base instinct of retribution.
Revenge.
An eye for an eye.
In the 38 states that do allow state executions, it's primly called the death penalty.
Many of them try to humanely administer the latest techniques to
surgically end life.
Victims, witnesses and reporters sit in viewing rooms to watch the clinical precision of the execution.
It's ghastly.
It's something that Michigan doesn't need, and that its people have clearly not wanted.
Bids in 1999 and in 2004 to create a death penalty here for murder failed.
As should this latest attempt to legalize state-sanctioned homicide.
Extinguishing a human life is called a punishment for the worst of crimes.
For murder.
Yet, even after all the emotion, all the hate and anger is stripped away, a state execution remains an act of revenge.
It doesn't erase the awful impact of the criminals' acts.
Michigan murderers are already sent to prison, caged like animals for the rest of their lives.
For some of those behind bars, death might be a mercy.
The state of Michigan has never allowed death as a punishment for murder.
Despite that ban, we have had 2 executions. One was in Detroit, in 1830, before Michigan became a state. The other was a federal case, for the murder of a Bay City man during a Midland bank robbery. Anthony Chebatoris was hanged at the federal prison in Milan on July 8, 1938.
The killing of criminals is a barbaric act.
No study has clearly shown that it deters killers.
Where the death penalty is allowed, it is society's violent reaction to unspeakable violence.
There is no good in a death penalty.
Only cold, calculated revenge.
Meted out to satisfy society's hunger to exact a price for taking a life.
Yet in Michigan many, many years ago, we began a wise tradition.
We took a step back from the brink of brutality.
Michigan does not engage in homicide.
Nor should it.
(source: Bay City Times----Our View is the editorial opinion of The Bay City Times, as determined by the newspaper's editorial board, which includes the editorial page editor, the editor and the publisher)
Another unspeakable crime.
Another call for Michigan to kill those who kill others.
It's an understandable gut reaction.
But it's not for us.
A bill introduced last month in the state Legislature would ask voters whether we would want a death penalty for the crime of 1st-degree, premeditated murder.
It would make Michigan something it never has been.
A death penalty state.
Michigan is considered one of the 1st English-speaking governments in the world to formally ban the death penalty for murder, in 1846. Executions weren't allowed here since before Michigan became a state in 1837.
Now, Rep. Dan Acciavatti, R-Chesterfield, wants the House and Senate to agree to put before voters an amendment to the state constitution allowing state executions for murder.
It was in his legislative district, in New Baltimore, that Patrick Selepak tortured and then killed a couple in a horrific murder spree in February.
Melissa Berels was choked.
Scott Berels was injected with bleach.
Life in prison just doesn't seem punishment enough for that brand of inhumanity.
So we toy with the base instinct of retribution.
Revenge.
An eye for an eye.
In the 38 states that do allow state executions, it's primly called the death penalty.
Many of them try to humanely administer the latest techniques to
surgically end life.
Victims, witnesses and reporters sit in viewing rooms to watch the clinical precision of the execution.
It's ghastly.
It's something that Michigan doesn't need, and that its people have clearly not wanted.
Bids in 1999 and in 2004 to create a death penalty here for murder failed.
As should this latest attempt to legalize state-sanctioned homicide.
Extinguishing a human life is called a punishment for the worst of crimes.
For murder.
Yet, even after all the emotion, all the hate and anger is stripped away, a state execution remains an act of revenge.
It doesn't erase the awful impact of the criminals' acts.
Michigan murderers are already sent to prison, caged like animals for the rest of their lives.
For some of those behind bars, death might be a mercy.
The state of Michigan has never allowed death as a punishment for murder.
Despite that ban, we have had 2 executions. One was in Detroit, in 1830, before Michigan became a state. The other was a federal case, for the murder of a Bay City man during a Midland bank robbery. Anthony Chebatoris was hanged at the federal prison in Milan on July 8, 1938.
The killing of criminals is a barbaric act.
No study has clearly shown that it deters killers.
Where the death penalty is allowed, it is society's violent reaction to unspeakable violence.
There is no good in a death penalty.
Only cold, calculated revenge.
Meted out to satisfy society's hunger to exact a price for taking a life.
Yet in Michigan many, many years ago, we began a wise tradition.
We took a step back from the brink of brutality.
Michigan does not engage in homicide.
Nor should it.
(source: Bay City Times----Our View is the editorial opinion of The Bay City Times, as determined by the newspaper's editorial board, which includes the editorial page editor, the editor and the publisher)