Overall the years, I’ve developed a more or less anti death penalty stance. It’s financially wasteful. Depending on what method, it may violate the condemned’s 8th Amendment rights. It leaves a new class of stigmatized widows & orphans.
However, watching a program about a young Atlanta wonan killed by a repeat offender, i’m not sure I still hold that POV. Few articles remain as this was the end of the ‘80’s, but research Julie Love murder, or Julie Love/Mark Kaplan if interested.
Turned out Emmanuel Hammond, convicted & executed for killing her w a shotgun, had priors for similar incidents of forcing young women into his car for purpose of robbing them for drug money. One young woman was stabbed & left in a remote wooded area to die. Ms. Love was raped by an accomplice & killed in an illegal dump site.
He was the average size adult male, she a “5’0’ fitness instructor w a glass eye due to childhood disease. Her remains were found when the girlfriend he battered turned him in.
Few would have hesitation about euthanizing an animal that has killed someone, or showed itself to be too temperamental to be placed in a shelter adoption.
Yet there still is hesitation by some to execute a repeat violent offender. Thoughts?
If you can prove beyond all doubt that the person did it then I tend to have no issues with it. I do have a problem with innocent people being put to death. So if you are police or lawyers involved in putting an innocent man to death then you should get the same penalty.
Locard’s Principal states evidence of an individual’s presence, but not what they did when they were at the scene.
One could, for instance, have DNA on a coffee cup in the home of a decedent. They could even have had a difficult relationship with that person. But such proof indicates only their presence.
The evidence against Emmanuel Hammond was obtained by his ex wearing a wire & obtaining it in conversation with his accomplice, now serving LWOP.
Those anti, I’ve always considered treason an issue, where national secrets have been sold to an enemy nation, placing many lives at risk. I believe death to be an appropriate penalty, providing guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mike Dukakis’ response to Bernard Shaw’s question about what his thoughts would be on the death penalty if his wife was raped and killed was that he would still oppose the death penalty. While that’s a valid position to take, given he had always been opposed to the death penalty, it did reveal him to be, at a minimum, passionless.
A much better response would have been to say, that as much as he might have personally wanted to strangle the SOB that did it, he believed that government shouldn’t be in the business of killing people.
I have to agree, our government should not be in the business of killing people. Life without any chance parole is morally a more acceptable punishment and I think in some way a more painful punishment.