- Home
- News
- Opinion
- Letters
- Sports
- Prospecting
- Essentials
- Obituaries
- Real Estate
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
Share Article
884
231884231
EDITOR:
In the 10/12 issue, you made your case against Proposition 34, which seeks to repeal the death penalty. And your agrument against Prop 34 was a very weak one.
There are three basic arguments against the death penalty and you addressed two of them. The first is that the death penalty is too expensive. Your reply to this, “so what?” deserves a strong “duh!” In this state, at this time, in this economy no one cares about government spending?
The second argument against the death penalty is that it is not a deterrent. Your reply, “so, make it work” can be called beating a dead horse. America has been executing criminals for a very, very long time and it is not a deterrent.
You passed over the strongest agrument against the death penalty: it is unjust. When a man who has a below normal I.Q. is put to death in one state for killing one person and a man with no such disability in another state gets life for killing more than 30 people, there is something wrong. When the percentage of female killers executed does not come even close to the percentage of male killers executed, there is something wrong. And I don’t even have to bring up the discrepency when poverty and/or race is involved, do I? It’s a given.
There is no way that the death penalty is moral, effective, or economical. And yes, it is possible to keep a convicted killer locked up for his entire life.
SYLVIA MEDLEY
El Dorado
The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Jack MartinOctober 24, 2012 - 11:07 am
Ms Medley, it is impossible for you to have been more wrong on this issue. First, the death penalty is, by definition, a deterrent. The killer will never ever kill again, and the inescapable finality of his execution will have a ripple effect on his family and associates. If even one of them steps back from murdering someone, it is, by definition, a deterrent. Capital Punishment is moral, both on a secular and a Biblical level. How so? On the secular level, we say as a society that we value life so very highly that if you decide to take one through deliberate forethought (murder), then yours will be required in exchange. On a Biblical level, we are told in Genesis 9:6 "Who so ever sheds the blood of man, then by man shall his blood be shed." And if you intend to apply the lower IQ argument in a murder case, then logically it must applied at all lower levels of the justice system, to be consistent. By your logic, we'll have people appealing their speeding tickets because they were below average students. The death penalty is in fact moral and can be effective when properly implemented.
CatherineOctober 24, 2012 - 3:19 pm
Ms. Medley, Thank you for your letter. You say "There is no way that the death penalty is moral, effective, or economical" and I believe you are completely correct. Few civilized countries continue to support the death penalty, and the fact that approximately 30% of people in our prison system have serious mental illnesses (neurological disorders) further hampers our ability to use state-sanctioned killing as a just "punishment" for their crimes. I'll be interested to see what the voters decide.
Jesus H ChristOctober 25, 2012 - 10:33 am
Jack, Do I need to remind you not to eat shellfish? To not sass your parents? To not shave? And for Pete's sake to not wear clothing that are reated with mixed material. As the Bible says, you will be put to death for these violations.