I think that there are cases, such as the recent one involving Norway's mass-murderer, where the death penalty should be applied no later than one year after the crime. I think allowing a murderer, who is guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt, to continue speaking and engaging the world is a decided negative, an evil influence that can continue to work harm in the world, even if said criminal is behind bars. Such a monster has a negative influence on the public, other prisoners and even on the prison guards. It would be far better to pierce his brain with a single bullet (to save on costs) as soon as possible. To not do so indicates pure negligence and incompetence. I believe that insanity is not an adequate defense for certain crimes, and that even the insane should be killed if found guilty. If California were a state ruled by competent leaders, then Charles Manson would not be alive today, and the parole board would not have to waste its time on his case. It is too bad when someone is insane, but the chief concern in the aftermath of a murder should be for the victims, the survivors, and the community. There is no form of insanity that cannot be addressed by a .45.
The death penalty should be rare, applied to the worst cases of murder, and only applied in cases where guilt has been clearly established. I don't support the death penalty for crimes other than murder. But once an innocent person has been killed by a murderer, they don't get a chance for "parole" or anything else, not even a single day of life, and they can't mount an "insanity defense" either. The murderer has acted without half the compassion or decency shown by the State. I do feel that turnabout is fair play. I also think that the feelings of the victims, survivors and the community should be taken into account. It is not fair to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for babysitting an unrepentant, intentional murderer for the rest of his life.
No comments:
Post a Comment