I used to be strongly opposed to capital punishment. Then I was ambivalent about it. Now, if there was a referendum tomorrow, I would probably vote in favor of it.
I made capital punishment the theme of a talk I gave once for a public speaking competition when I was in Year 10 or 11 (1982 or 83).
Back then I thought it was wrong because mistakes happen and man shouldn’t usurp God in deciding when someone should die. I was idealistic and that view was consistent with my opposition to abortion.
Countering the second part of that argument, men have been deciding life or death issues since time began and it continues today in hospitals.
The first part of my youthful argument is a strong one.
But when there is no doubt?
Consider someone like Martin Bryant, for example. He murdered 35 people and injured 19 others. He is being kept alive at taxpayers’ expense.
I think of that horrible man in Austria who imprisoned his children and slept with his daughters. Prison is too good for someone like that.
Capital punishment shouldn’t be a mandatory sentence, but judges should have the discretion to impose it.
With checks and balances it seems appropriate in some cases.
×0
I support the death penalty for gross offences against the person but I concede that permanent incarceration could be a more severe punishment than death. After all, the horror of the Austrian case is greater because of the relentlessness of the offender’s cruelty. If he’d simply shot his mother and children it wouldn’t be the international wonder that it is. In his case, living out his last in a windowless concrete box would be a most appropriate end.
Twitter: delmerw
says:
I’ve always been pro-death penalty. It seems to be one of the non-Democrat things about me.
Sometimes there is no doubt that a person has committed a murder — Jeffrey Dahmer (sp) comes to mind. Those folks should be put on the fast track to lethal injection. (You likely know I attended an execution several years ago.)