Killers deserve ultimate sentence — execution
‘Moral and practical’ argument an exercise in legal hypocrisy
This responds to the column by Kathleen Parker, “Execution is too lenient for the Charleston killer,” published on Dec. 20.
Parker argues against executing Dylann Roof, despite his murder of nine parishioners in prayer, because she opposes the death penalty for reasons she deems “moral and practical.”
She makes the usual argument that the process isn’t perfect and mistakes can be made: “I can’t countenance anything less than a foolproof system.”
This is, of course, utter hypocrisy. She demands divine perfection from a capital punishment system but is willing to accept the vastly greater risk of further murders by not executing such murderers.
The highest estimates I’ve seen for true innocents that have gotten through the trial and many appeals built into the death penalty process and been actually executed is one every few years. Academic studies suggest much less, particularly when you exclude those actually guilty but who, with the right team of smart lawyers, might have managed to “beat the rap.”
By contrast, murderers who are sentenced to prison often go on to murder again. Recidivism estimates for murderers range from 1 percent to 20 percent or so.
Furthermore, while there are few headline-grabbing followup murders associated with prison escapes (e.g., the Texas Seven), there are hundreds of homicides in U.S. prisons each year, and on the order of 80 murders per year in which the perpetrator can be identified.
Bureau of Justice statistics indicate that as many as a third of these murders are by inmates who already have at least one homicide conviction under their belt.
Parker may consider it OK that any number of those who are in prison for lesser crimes, say, writing bad checks, be murdered; most would not.
Parker also makes the claim that “death sentences are ineffective as a deterrent.” This again is a common anti-death penalty argument, based on the fact that deterrence has not been “proven” (except, of course, for the executed perpetrator).
This is simply a misleading halftruth. Lack of deterrence hasn’t been “proven” either, for the simple reason that almost nothing in the social sciences can be scientifically “proven” because, as is generally the case with social hypotheses, you can’t control all the variables.
For her to pretend to more than that only shows the limitations of her own argument.
She argues that “death is too easy,” which is utter nonsense. If that were the case, where the death penalty was abolished, there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from those on death row. As we know from our own experience in New Mexico, considerable relief has been the usual reaction.
Finally, while she offers the alternative of “life without parole,” that has been proven to be a false promise as well, as other “compassionate” liberals have promoted, and in some cases achieved, “compassionate release,” arguing that, after decades, the criminal has “rebuilt their life.” So much for “life without parole.”
In any case, consider the unfairness of it: no such option was, of course, available for the victim.
The most practical solution is the final one. Simply remove the murderer as a living entity from our universe. It leaves our society vastly better off.