To Kill or Not to Kill
California has gotten itself into a bit of a legal connundrum this past week.
It seems that, with the ruling that an anesthesiologist should watch over lethal injection proceedings, California has entered what the press is calling a "de facto moratorium" on the death penalty.
This whole business started when a Federal judge ordered that a medical professional be present to determine if the administration of the 3 part lethal injection constituted "cruel and unusual punishment". It seems people have issues with the second shot, which some people believe leave the executionee incapacitated, but still aware of the pain being inflicted upon him/her as their body starts shutting down.
Not surprisingly, no medical professionals want any part in this. They feel it violates their "do no harm" credo. Really? You think?
Californians voted the death penalty back into effect in 1977. It's something we actually want to happen. Let me give you a little run-down of the type of person we want to get rid of.
Michael Angelo Morales was convicted 23 years ago for the rape and murder of a 17 year old girl. He and his cousin plotted to kill this girl, because the cousin (who was involved with the girl at the time) was jealous that she was also involved with the cousin's gay lover. Morales first attempted to strangle her with his belt. When the belt broke, he hit her in the head with a hammer at least 23 times, stripped her naked and raped her, started to leave, the went back and stabbed her four times in the chest to make sure she was dead, and left her to die naked in a vineyard.
We've already fed, clothed and housed this beast for 23 years. Now, because panty-waisted liberals feel the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" the taxpayers are forced to continue wasting our hard earned money on the filth of society. In my opinion, lethal injection is entirely too good for these people. They should be forced to die the way they took human life.
However, with the Federal judge's ruling, and the refusal of medical professionals to participate, all of the scheduled executions have been put on hold. Analysts believe that this moratorium will last at least the rest of this year, while the "legal and medical professionals" try to figure out a way to humanely end someone's life.
The thing that gets me is that none of the people slated to die in the gas chamber ever once considered how to "humanely" end their victims' lives. Yet, as convicted felons, they have one of the most powerful legal forces fighting for their lives - the American Civil Liberties Union. They argue that there's a "chance" the inmates could have been wrongly accused. Well, you know what? They usually have over 20 years to produce new evidence to clear their names. Personally, I think that's too much time, but I'm not in charge.
If this offends some of my more liberal minded friends, I do apologize. However, I will not change my opinion, and will continue to voice my support for the death penalty in California.
*end rant*
It seems that, with the ruling that an anesthesiologist should watch over lethal injection proceedings, California has entered what the press is calling a "de facto moratorium" on the death penalty.
This whole business started when a Federal judge ordered that a medical professional be present to determine if the administration of the 3 part lethal injection constituted "cruel and unusual punishment". It seems people have issues with the second shot, which some people believe leave the executionee incapacitated, but still aware of the pain being inflicted upon him/her as their body starts shutting down.
Not surprisingly, no medical professionals want any part in this. They feel it violates their "do no harm" credo. Really? You think?
Californians voted the death penalty back into effect in 1977. It's something we actually want to happen. Let me give you a little run-down of the type of person we want to get rid of.
Michael Angelo Morales was convicted 23 years ago for the rape and murder of a 17 year old girl. He and his cousin plotted to kill this girl, because the cousin (who was involved with the girl at the time) was jealous that she was also involved with the cousin's gay lover. Morales first attempted to strangle her with his belt. When the belt broke, he hit her in the head with a hammer at least 23 times, stripped her naked and raped her, started to leave, the went back and stabbed her four times in the chest to make sure she was dead, and left her to die naked in a vineyard.
We've already fed, clothed and housed this beast for 23 years. Now, because panty-waisted liberals feel the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" the taxpayers are forced to continue wasting our hard earned money on the filth of society. In my opinion, lethal injection is entirely too good for these people. They should be forced to die the way they took human life.
However, with the Federal judge's ruling, and the refusal of medical professionals to participate, all of the scheduled executions have been put on hold. Analysts believe that this moratorium will last at least the rest of this year, while the "legal and medical professionals" try to figure out a way to humanely end someone's life.
The thing that gets me is that none of the people slated to die in the gas chamber ever once considered how to "humanely" end their victims' lives. Yet, as convicted felons, they have one of the most powerful legal forces fighting for their lives - the American Civil Liberties Union. They argue that there's a "chance" the inmates could have been wrongly accused. Well, you know what? They usually have over 20 years to produce new evidence to clear their names. Personally, I think that's too much time, but I'm not in charge.
If this offends some of my more liberal minded friends, I do apologize. However, I will not change my opinion, and will continue to voice my support for the death penalty in California.
*end rant*
posted by Callie | 2/23/2006 09:08:00 AM
8 Comments:
I think any form of death penalty is cruel and unusual. We're killing people. How can that not be cruel?
Which is not to say I am opposed to the death penalty. I do have some qualms about the way the death penalty is applied, but that's a whole 'nother topic.
If we're going to have a death penalty we need to accept the fact that it's cruel and move on. Really, should we care about mercy for those few people judged completely unforgivable and irredeemable? If we've decided their crimes are too heinous to allow them to keep living, then why should we care if their last minute of life is comfortable?
Oh, wait... I mean "California sucks."
LMAO Joe.
In this one instance, I'll agree with you. Bleeding heart liberal morons.
Other than that - California totally rocks.
Personally I'm in favor of the death penalty and I also could care less if someone who committed a crime like the one that was described suffers in the final minute or two of their life.
But as a matter of policy I think we should worry about the cruel and unusual aspects because the constitution supposedly protects us against such things. I guess I worry that if you make exclusions for some things it opens the floodgates for other "protected rights". If we say it's ok to to be cruel and unusual in one regard, then why would it not be ok to revoke freedom of speech or press or any other issue when it becomes convenient?
That's my beef with the Bush Administration right now. It seems that, at best, they are bending rules or at worst, out right violating them, in order to "protect us". I think if you give an inch than you might as well give a mile and capital punishment is no different.
With humor I'll sometimes entertain thoughts of eye for an eye or kill the murderer the way he/she killed their victim, but at the end of the day I don't think it makes us any better than them.
Personally I'd like to see medically induced coma combined with lethal injection. I think that's about as humane a way as any to end a life.
I'm with you, Callie. These sub-humans (they are NOT people) kill others in the most horrible fashion with no regard for how their victims are suffering, so why the HELL should we give them rights that weren't respected by them?
As far as I'm concerned, all forms of the death penalty are too good. Whatever happened to stoning? Honestly. Someone like this guy you're talking about (or Canada's infamous Paul Bernardo & Karla Homolka) should be put in a stadium, tied to a post and allow the families of victims and some of the victims themselves to stone the slime to death.
It'll hurt... and they deserve it.
And don't even get me started on why these idiots have "protective custody" in prison...I could rant about that for weeks.
By the way, LOVE the new look and welcome back - I missed you!
:oD
OK KIDS, AREN'T YOU MISSING THE ISSUE? IT IS ABOUT YOUR MEDICAL FOLKS NOT WANTING TO VIOLATE THEIR OATH TO DO NO HARM...GEE? DO THEY COMPLAIN WHEN THE PERFORM ABORTIONS FOR PROFIT? HASN'T THAT BEEN PROVEN TO CAUSE PAIN? HMMMM WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE HERE? JUST PUT THE JUDGE WHO STARTED ALL THIS IN A COMA. WHEN I WAS A CHILD THE WHIPPING POST AND HANGING WAS LEGAL. EXECUTIONS WERE PUBLIC...POPCORN ANYONE? I'M OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY FOR DIFFERENT REASONS...I DO BELIEVE THE STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO IT...I DO BELIEVE THAT SOME PEOPLE JUST NEED KILLING BUT I SCARE MYSELF WHEN I THINK OF HOW I WOULD DO IT AND TRUST ME ON THIS LAST ONE..WE ARE ALL DIMINISHED WHEN WE TAKE ANYONES LIFE AND THERE IS NO CLOSURE EVEN AFTER WE KILL THEM..YOU MUST BE WILLING TO DO IT YOURSELF, DON'T ASK THE STATE TO KILL IN YOUR NAME...DON'T SPEAK IDLE WORDS...ARE YOU SERIOUSLY WILLING TO TAKE ANOTHERS LIFE AND DO IT YOURSELF? IF YOU ARE GET THE STATE TO LET YOU AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE PERSON YOU ARE KILLING..WORRY ABOUT YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU WILL BE THE ONE IN PAIN.
hmm, alrighty.
Post a Comment
<< Home