Interesting article in the paper recently re: death penalty cases and which cases the Supreme Court will and will not review. Once again the age-old battle between the conservatives and the liberals rears its ugly head.
Shortly thereafter the paper printed a terrific column by Lee Grabar which reflects my own thinking. My compliments to Mr. Grabar.
I would guess that the right-to-lifers ( aka anti-abortionists ) are the same people in many instances who cry out against the death sentence. I have a different take on the similarities. There aren’t any. The right-to-life for an unborn baby may make sense, because one of the most troubling questions is when does life begin? If it’s at conception, then perhaps it is wrong to abort a baby. If it is at the time the baby leaves the womb, perhaps it should be only the mother’s right to choose. If it’s somewhere
in between the nine months of those two periods, then who knows?
But one thing we all know. The baby has done no wrong. Of course, that is not in any way the whole answer. There are many issues on both sides of the question. It is only part of the equation. Now, this column isn’t about abortion. I cite the abortion issue merely to point out some people against abortion might be in favor of execution. Or the reverse.
I am 100% in favor of executing those who commit murder. For those opposed, would your feelings change if one of your relatives were killed by the sniper in the Maryland area? Or if you lost family in the 9/11 tragedy
( as my in-law’s family did ) and we caught Bin Laden and his trial was here? The problem with our justice system is not the death penalty. It is the “ unjust ’’ lack of closure, due to the never-ending appeals that criminals are allowed. Now I recognise the freedom that DNA has brought to many wrongly convicted prisoners. And that’s obviously terrific. That makes a great case for not having the death penalty in cases where a death is not involved. ( Exception: See Below )

My philosophy is actually rather simple. If you take a life, you die. IF you are committing a lesser crime ( like robbery ) and it goes awry, and someone loses a life, you die. You should not have been committing the lesser crime in the first place. I agree that one needs to be convicted
( BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, WITH COMPELLING EVIDENCE ) but when you are, you die. Maybe you should be given a single appeal, within a short time period. Say 6 months. And then you die. Opponents argue execution is not a deterrent. Who cares? What it is, in fact, is closure.
Closure for the survivors of the victim, and closures for the justice system.