I've always been of the opinion that punishment should be dealt out on the "eye for an eye and hand for a hand" basis. If you murder somebody, you should get the death penalty.
That being said, now comes the argument as to whether or not someone who has been sentenced to death is entitled to be put to death by politically correct and "humane" methods. Typically speaking, the offender hasn't delivered his murder by humane means; they rape, they beat, they stab and quite often use painful poison or a shotgun.
Well, what's the purpose of the death penalty, anyway? There are actually two: (1) to deliver a penalty for the commission of the crime and (2) to deter others from committing a murder. How can you deter someone when you deliver the death penalty penalty in a sanitary room, far removed from public view? And what is it with this attitude of, "While he's waiting, he can have conjugal visits and as many heart bypasses or sex-change operations as he wants?"
If it were up to me, I'd still be hanging these convicts in front of the local court house at high noon, where everybody in town can see it.
Now comes the State of Utah and its dilemma of how to do the dirty deed. They've been using death by lethal injection, but had to stop when the proper chemicals became unavailable. So, rather than keeping the convicts from piling up on death row, they opted to go back to the days of the firing squad and they've been widely criticized for that. "We're going back to barbarism," I heard one commentator lament.
Good God! If the guy has been convicted of murder and exhausted his appeals, get it over with. Kill him and quit wasting the taxpayer's money. Granted, putting him in a pen and starving him to death is going too far but, any means which is quick and decisive is fine by me.
Besides, we need more room in our hoosegows for political prisoners.
That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment