Skip to content

Death Penalty

Righty: An eye for an eye, a life for a life. Anyone who deliberately takes a life deserves to have his own life taken. Anything less would stink of injustice. If someone murdered your own child (and everyone is somebody’s child), you can bet you’d want to see the murderer die. Not only die, but die miserably. As it is, our executions are swift and humane. And it’s not as if we recommend the death penalty for stealing a loaf of bread. It’s odd that Lefty and his friends think nothing of killing an innocent fetus, but they’ll rise up to defend an abominable sociopath who rapes and murders children. (What have they got against children, anyway?) We have to use the worst criminals as public examples — both as a deterrent to similar crimes and as an assertive statement that such behavior will never be tolerated.

Lefty: The state has no right to take a life, even the life of a serial murderer. Think about the illogic of it: we’re killing people to show that killing people is wrong. Think about the deeper human issues: people can’t help becoming what they become. People are driven to kill by forces that are often beyond our comprehension. (The fact that people still murder is the best evidence that the death penalty is not a deterrent.) And think of all the prisoners on death row who have been found innocent when the real murderer finally confesses. More disturbingly, think of all the innocent prisoners who have gone to their executions because the real murderer was never found. Death is too serious a matter to be decided by a jury. The United States is the only industrialized Western nation that hasn’t abolished capital punishment. This is an international disgrace. Even Turkey, Angola and Cambodia have discarded the death penalty. Why is it that people like Righty get bent out of shape over the abortion of undeveloped, unconscious embryos, but they’ll cry for the blood of a suspected murderer who may not even have done the deed?

The New Moderate:

Righty and Lefty both make compelling arguments here. So where does The New Moderate stand on capital punishment? Let’s keep it as the ultimate penalty for only the most egregious crimes: for wanton murderers who laugh in the faces of the victims’ families, and for traitors whose defection directly causes the deaths of their countrymen. Such people don’t deserve to live, even in confinement and misery. (Convicted Muslim terrorists do deserve to live in confinement and misery, if only because they’re desperate to die as glorious martyrs.)

Nobody should ever be executed on the basis of testimony from witnesses. Even confessions are often invalid — either because of the way they’re extracted under sweltering overhead lights or because of the loopy mental condition of the suspect. The evidence must be as incontrovertible as a smoking gun or at least a smoking videotape.

But how can The New Moderate justify the death penalty at all? How can someone who refuses to eat veal condone the execution of a fellow human? Because veal calves are young and innocent. On the other hand, some criminals are so perfidious and their deeds so foul that only their executions can cleanse the air. Life behind bars would simply be a long and tedious anticlimax, like a bad play that rambles on for 37 acts. Has society really been served by keeping Charles Manson alive and healthy since 1969? Aren’t you tired of his incessant smirking and gloating, his outrageous self-assurance, his damnable confidence that he remains an underground cult figure and evil philosopher who could still lure worshipful groupies to his side? Doesn’t it irk you that he’s more famous than you or I… that he merits a lengthy, scrupulously annotated article in Wikipedia? It should.

Would I take pleasure in seeing someone like Charles Manson transformed into an instant corpse? No, not at all. I hate to see any healthy living organism cut down before its time. It’s a tragedy that Manson didn’t feel the same way.

Summary: Keep the death penalty, but reserve it for only the most heinous crimes that can be proven independently of eyewitness testimony.

16 Comments leave one →
  1. Taliesin Knol permalink
    January 6, 2010 3:39 am

    “An eye for an eye, makes everbody blind” but righty is too stupid to know the difference anyway, so somebody get me box of stones… However, I am for VERY limited use of the death penalty, in the presence of completely overwhleming proof, and lack of possibilty of reform or regret for wringdoings. You can’t fix everyone, but that doesn’t mean stop trying to fix anyone at all. As to the ridiculous way the American justice systems uses the death penalty, using people with no medical training due to oaths, and spending more money keeping people on death years, and executions that cost more than a life prison term, that’s should have been a common sense fix.

  2. Anonymous permalink
    July 11, 2011 12:26 pm

    I am very much in agreement with a limited use of the death penalty and especially with requiring more convincing evidence than “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I am disturbed by the large number of death row inmates whose innocence has been established by DNA evidence. I am even more disturbed by the behavior of prosecutors who have pulled out all stops to try and prevent the consideration of exculpatory evidence or to deny DNA testing. They are too concerned with winning and too unconcerned with justice.

  3. Andy permalink
    November 7, 2011 7:42 pm

    DNA should automatically be used in death penalty cases. Where no DNA exists MAY be a different matter. How many people are actually going to kill someone in front of someone else unless that person is an accomplice? Everyone can argue that “there’s no way to truly know” who did it. I sure as hell would not stand out there at midnight protesting the execution of a murderer. And YES I would be very happy to see someone like Manson transformed into an instant corpse. I would like for them to find ONE person and publish that person’s name…who was truly INNOCENT but got executed anyway. Until then I could never agree to an abolition.

  4. dave permalink
    December 30, 2012 2:28 am

    as a ex-murderer I do not think I should be killed for my action. I am a free man and I can do whatever I want in this free world. If you are stupid enough not to stand up for yourself and stop government to pay all this money to make my day better in prison then it is your fault. Life in prison is like vacation 🙂 thank you all taxpayers.

  5. Lynn permalink
    October 20, 2013 11:11 am

    I believe that the death penalty is severely underused. The overcrowding in our prison system could be greatly alleviated by a wider use of the death penalty with less wait between sentencing and execution. Many people choose going to prison over getting a job and becoming a contributing member of society. This pattern needs to change. We cannot afford to keep supporting these drains on our society.

    • December 28, 2013 8:44 pm

      Our criminal justice detention system is overcrowded because we incarcerate non violent drug offenders. Stop incarcerating non violent drug offenders and there will be plenty of room for the most violent and aggresive offenders who do not wish to be rehabilitated.

  6. December 28, 2013 8:38 pm

    Rick, the state has no right to kill prisoners. Why? Because the death penalty isn’t about justice, it’s about revenge. The criminal justice system isn’t for the purpose of exacting revenge, it’s to administer justice.

    Furthermore, people detained in the criminal justice system should not be kept in solitude and misery, they should be treated like humans and not animals.

  7. July 20, 2015 4:09 pm

    In order for the death penalty to actually work, it would have to be used swiftly, aggressively and consistently, and even then, it wouldn’t deter the truly deranged who tend to commit the most heinous acts. Fortunately, we are not barbaric enough to use it effectively, as we are (ideally) unwilling to chance any innocent person from being wrongly executed. Add to that the incredibly drawn out legal system and cost of actually bringing someone to execution, and it’s pretty clear it is not a viable system for us.

  8. Anonymous permalink
    November 18, 2015 2:18 pm

    what you said muslim martyrs this is a big world everbody has there own different uniqueness that makes everyone there own person muslims are not the only people who do that

  9. Rmene permalink
    August 4, 2016 1:11 pm

    “Rick, the state has no right to kill prisoners. Why? Because the death penalty isn’t about justice, it’s about revenge. The criminal justice system isn’t for the purpose of exacting revenge, it’s to administer justice. ”

    don’t understand how it’s not vengeance if you send someone to prison for life but it is vengeance if you give them the death penalty. Who makes the rules as to what constitutes vengeance and what doesn’t?

    If someone did take another’s by purposely taking their life with all intentions of doing that and not to mention whatever heinous acts they committed before murdering their victim, then it’s only fair they receive a likewise punishment for their crimes.

    def. of justice: just behavior or treatment.
    : the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals

  10. Mike Hatcher permalink
    December 13, 2016 2:27 pm

    One of the toughest issues for me. I believe in the concept of the death penalty, my problem is I do not trust the government to always use it correctly, thus it would be best to not use it at all.

  11. August 23, 2020 10:49 pm

    Priscilla, I have tried to avoid listening to anything on the news and my attitude has improved greatly😁!

    But after hearing about the postal issue, I looked up some data and shared with liberal friends making a big deal. In 2000, there were over 300,000 blue boxes. In 2009, there were 176,000. USPS monitors boxes and when daily mail drops below 25 pieces, the box is removed. In 2000, the USPS processed over 1.5 billion first class mailing. In 2009, that was cut by 50%. Most all due to internet impact.

    So I asked my friends, “Even with this being an agency that was jot designed to turn a profit, is it acceptable to have assets, boxes and sorting machines, and employees to service them when the volumes have dropped 50% from the highs before the internet”

    This is just another political red hearing, but Trump has done more to perpetuate it with his undisciplined mouth than the left wing media ever could!

    I have no problem with mail ballots. Utah has used it since 2013. My daughter voted that way since she moved there. But they have perfected it, not like the willy nilly system other states are trying to ram through without controls.

    I heard that Florida had 58,000 more absentee ballots requested in 2016 by democrats than republicans. Right jow,b600,000+ more democrats than G.O.P. If that indicates enthusiasm to vote, I would say Trump is toast.

    • August 23, 2020 10:54 pm

      For some reason my tablet is changing “n’s” to “j’s” and FL absentee number now is 600,000. My fingers way to big for tiny keyboards!

    • Priscilla permalink
      August 24, 2020 9:55 am

      I read the polls, and, to be honest, if I thought they were honest, I would be more worried than I am. I just don’t hink we’re quite at the point where anti-Semitic socialists, pretending to be moderates, are going to be elected. Then again, I’ve been very wrong in the past.

      As far as mass mail-in voting, I don’t think that there is any question that it will be a disaster. Here in NJ, the governor has said that ballots will be mailed out to everyone, and there will also be in-person voting. An invitation to vote at least twice, right? No security systems in place to verify names and signatures. We’ve been getting sample ballots mailed to my mother for years, although she died in 2008. I imagine she’ll be getting a mail ballot.

      I think the plan is simply to create chaos and confusion, so that no one will know the results of the election on November 4th. Or perhaps not even in 2020. The chaos will result in more insurrection and social breakdown, and there will never be any resolution, until Biden is declared the winner. That’s why the polls have to continually predict that he’s winning, and why the news media is creating this postal service conspiracy theory.

      I will stop by and read your and Dave’s comments on Turley’s blog. Don’t think I’ll be commenting anywhere for a while, but that may be a good thing!

      • August 24, 2020 11:36 am

        Like I said, I have no problem with mail in ballots, but not like NJ. The system needs controls like Utah, began in 2013. I think it was the A.G. from Washington that said they have had mail in since 2011, but just recently for national elections and it took almost ten years to get controls right

        Yes, doing this in 3+ months is going to make 2000 look like a perfect election.

      • August 24, 2020 11:39 am

        One comment about Turleys blog. He posts articles much more often than Rick, and many more followers, so it is much more diverse and appears fewer confrontational responses.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: