Utah anti-death penalty crowd again is off target
By Greg ‘Gadfly’ Doyle
PACOVILLA Corrections Blog
February 20, 2015
The anti-capital punishment/anti-death penalty folks never cease to amuse and frustrate me. Perhaps it is because the press grants them way too much attention. It is as if those who oppose the death penalty are the only voices that matter in the public discourse over executions.
Does it matter to anyone in the anti-death penalty camp that voters in many states continue to demand, vote for, and affirm the need for State executions of heinous murderers? Are they concerned that the highest court in the country has continued to allow executions to move forward in States where it is sanctioned (hence, it is legally justified)?
The answer appears to be a resounding, “No!” It is very clear that those who oppose capital punishment believe there is no acceptable manner in which any State should dispose of a condemned prisoner, other than to allow that inmate to expire from more compassionate and natural causes.
The question I ask is this: What makes the life of a convicted and condemned criminal (who determined to unlawfully and viciously take someone else’s life) more important than the rest of society? Why do we, who abide by the law and live peacefully among our neighbors, have to endure the existence of heinous, brutal, and brazen killers?
Is it morally unjust to terminate a human life under ANY circumstance? No. Though I find it morally reprehensible, our justice system justifies abortion (killing unborn human life) under general circumstances. Soldiers are permitted to kill their opponents on the battlefield. Peace officers are allowed to engage threats to life with deadly force. And American citizens are allowed to defend their own lives and kill assailants when justified.
And according to the law in most States, executing condemned prisoners (for murder) is completely justified. Morality is about judgment—a determination of what is right and wrong where human behavior is concerned. And if, through the process of a legal proceeding, a jury and judge determine execution is justified, then it is morally sound based upon the law.
What is morally wrong, in my estimation, is the perpetual delay of justice and circumvention of the law through endless and, in most cases, superfluous appeals.
And one of those perpetual appeals from anti-death penalty advocates is focused upon lethal injection and its chemical agents. Wait a minute! Wasn’t lethal injection the alternative to the electric chair, hanging, firing squad, and gas chamber because those methods had the appearance of medieval torture? Weren’t we appalled at the images of condemned men and women writhing at the end of a rope, smoldering in a chair, gasping for one last breath, or shuddering from the report of a bullet?
So the alternative was putting the condemned to sleep, so they would not have to experience outwardly what was coming inwardly. Our sensibilities and consciences could remain in tact using lethal injection.
That argument was nothing more than a scam; forgive the pun—a con job. The condemned are just as dead whether being hanged, electrocuted, gassed, shot, or injected. But how we, as a society, feel about ourselves afterwards is what is at stake.
Didn’t electrocutions just make you feel dirty? Aren’t those hardhearted prison guards just itching to toss Lefty into the chamber and drop the pill on him? How dreadful a sight to see Mugsy walked up the steps of the gallows for a necktie party? Doesn’t anybody have compassion anymore?!
Death is cruel, People—DON’T YOU GET IT?!!! The anti-death penalty people don’t like death. Death sucks. So don’t do it, please.
And because the lethal injection fight is becoming more difficult for States to endure, some states are suspending the execution of condemned prisoners to avoid legal entanglements in the courts. Not the State of Utah. There is serious consideration being given to bringing back the firing squad as a means of execution in their House of Representatives (for the full story see http://tinyurl.com/n3d2apa .)
The article said opponents of the firing squad cited one incident in 1879 where a bullet missed the inmate’s heart and it took 27 minutes for him to die. Hmmmmm. That is well over a century with only one mishap (botched execution.) Sounds like an effective execution method. Let’s sign California up before all our death row inmates die of old age.
If one incident in 1879 is the best they can cite for a reason not to use the firing squad, then the Utah anti-death penalty crowd (again) is off target.
No comments:
Post a Comment