Here in California, the voters have repeatedly supported this.
Many other states and the federal government carry out such sentences, yet in California, with almost 700 murderers on "Death Row," we haven't had an execution since 2006.
Our current Governor, Hairdo McGungrabber (a.k.a. Gavin Newsom), has made it clear he will not sign off on any execution. He has actively tried to ensure there will never be another execution in California.
For each person on Death Row, there was at least one person, and quite often many, who were murdered; some very painfully. Then their surviving loved ones were put through the anguish of an investigation and a trial. The murderer always or almost always denied their guilt rather than taking responsibility and apologizing, but the evidence was overwhelming. Our fellow citizens had to sit through jury duty for a trial and the penalty phase, usually being exposed to gruesome crime scene photos. They struggled and then recommended capital punishment with all twelve jurors agreeing. Then a judge considered everything and agreed.
The just thing would be to execute every person on Death Row.
For each person on Death Row, there was at least one person, and quite often many, who were murdered; some very painfully. Then their surviving loved ones were put through the anguish of an investigation and a trial. The murderer always or almost always denied their guilt rather than taking responsibility and apologizing, but the evidence was overwhelming. Our fellow citizens had to sit through jury duty for a trial and the penalty phase, usually being exposed to gruesome crime scene photos. They struggled and then recommended capital punishment with all twelve jurors agreeing. Then a judge considered everything and agreed.
The just thing would be to execute every person on Death Row.
Premeditated murder warrants capital punishment.
If we value human life, then premeditated murder should bring about the possibility of being punished, through due process, with execution.
It is absurd to equate a due process execution with premeditated murder. Anyone who does that reveals that they aren't serious thinkers. I understand the argument some people make that the state should not have this power, but let's be real. The state has the power to kill. If it is going to use that power at all, executing convicted murderers is a just way to use it.
The state has that power because we, the people have delegated that power to the state. The alternative is that we take it back and go back to familial clans carrying out justice.
Unfortunately, just thirteen murderers have been executed since California resumed them in the early 1990s. Which one of these shouldn't have been executed? Answer: NONE. Each one deserved it.
People like our atrocious Governor say that capital punishment isn't applied equally.
It's true that wealthy people can afford better defense teams. That's true about any crime. Shall we release all criminals from prison immediately and shut them down? (Some of the Left say yes.) What's the alternative to wealthy people having better lawyers? Requiring all defendants have a randomly assigned lawyer?
However, none of the anti-justice people can name a single one of those executed thirteen who were innocent. They were all guilty, and they all deserved to be executed.
Lethal injection isn't "cruel and unusual punishment." Some of the same people who claim it is support people who haven't murdered anyone choosing it for themselves, calling it "death with dignity." The people who wrote and adopted the "cruel and unusual" phrase into the Constitution would laugh anyone out of the room who claimed lethal injection for premeditated murder qualified as such. But I wouldn't mind going back to the way murderers were executed in the 1780s, if that's the game people want to play.
Everyone executed in California since the early 1990s, and everyone who has been on Death Row for a while, has had their cases reviewed over and over again. If they weren't guilty, that would have been discovered. Many of them have slaughtered their own spouse and children. They have morally forfeited their life.
If the state will not carry out the duty delegated to it, then the people are going to take that power back. If I'm ever on a jury in such a case, in which a family member or associate has executed a murderer, how likely do you think it will be for me to vote to convict?
I'm not alone.
If we value human life, then premeditated murder should bring about the possibility of being punished, through due process, with execution.
It is absurd to equate a due process execution with premeditated murder. Anyone who does that reveals that they aren't serious thinkers. I understand the argument some people make that the state should not have this power, but let's be real. The state has the power to kill. If it is going to use that power at all, executing convicted murderers is a just way to use it.
The state has that power because we, the people have delegated that power to the state. The alternative is that we take it back and go back to familial clans carrying out justice.
Unfortunately, just thirteen murderers have been executed since California resumed them in the early 1990s. Which one of these shouldn't have been executed? Answer: NONE. Each one deserved it.
People like our atrocious Governor say that capital punishment isn't applied equally.
It's true that wealthy people can afford better defense teams. That's true about any crime. Shall we release all criminals from prison immediately and shut them down? (Some of the Left say yes.) What's the alternative to wealthy people having better lawyers? Requiring all defendants have a randomly assigned lawyer?
However, none of the anti-justice people can name a single one of those executed thirteen who were innocent. They were all guilty, and they all deserved to be executed.
Lethal injection isn't "cruel and unusual punishment." Some of the same people who claim it is support people who haven't murdered anyone choosing it for themselves, calling it "death with dignity." The people who wrote and adopted the "cruel and unusual" phrase into the Constitution would laugh anyone out of the room who claimed lethal injection for premeditated murder qualified as such. But I wouldn't mind going back to the way murderers were executed in the 1780s, if that's the game people want to play.
Everyone executed in California since the early 1990s, and everyone who has been on Death Row for a while, has had their cases reviewed over and over again. If they weren't guilty, that would have been discovered. Many of them have slaughtered their own spouse and children. They have morally forfeited their life.
If the state will not carry out the duty delegated to it, then the people are going to take that power back. If I'm ever on a jury in such a case, in which a family member or associate has executed a murderer, how likely do you think it will be for me to vote to convict?
I'm not alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.