After watching a show on the Discovery Channel the other night about death row inmates, I began to wonder if I should take lightly the decision to be a proponent of the death penalty.
While I believe that putting a person to death for his crimes is a deterrent, I am not certain what crimes warrant the death penalty.
One of the death row inmates on the show murdered someone during a robbery. I did not hear the circumstances surrounding the murder, so I can make no opinion on that but I did start to have empathy for the man who was about to be put to death.
Reserving the death penalty for murderers only, to me is not right. After learning about the doctor in Delaware who videotaped himself molesting over one hundred patients, some as young as six months old, I would not think twice, as a mother, about watching them execute this guy.
The only part that is fuzzy to me, also speaking as a mother, is what type of parent allows their six-month-old baby left alone in the examination room with the pediatrician? My teenage children are lucky I am not in there with them at this age, but I figure they are old enough to tell me if something inappropriate happened.
I could live knowing that anyone who has ever murdered a child would die by lethal injection, the electric chair, hanging, or any other method still permitted. These people do not deserve to live in a world where there are children.
Allowing a judge or jury to impose the death penalty should be on a case-by-case basis.
The courts should never have allowed the woman who murdered Sharon Tate, who was pregnant, to live to an old age, and then die of cancer. A judge should have ordered her execution for the horrendous crime of murdering a woman and the child she carried in her womb.
When did the death penalty become a hot topic? Were there opponents of the death penalty all along who never spoke out about it? Today people speak their minds publicly on all topics of a controversial nature. Our society has gone to the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to victims versus criminals' rights.
The man on the Discovery Channel show murdered someone, ending their life, and shattered the emotional well-being of the family of the murdered individual. Does he deserve to die? Does a man who was supposed to dedicate his life to taking care of children, deserve to continue living after not only destroying the emotional psyche of over one-hundred children, but also managed to change the lives of those children's parents forever? I think he should receive the death penalty when found guilty of the most tragic and senseless crime of all, one that destroys children.
I find it extremely hard to believe that those against the death penalty for all criminals think that there is not a crime evil or disgusting enough for them to change their minds. We should not join the cause of those who oppose the death penalty simply because we cannot decide who deserves to die and who does not.
If people deem the death penalty as immoral, wrong, or unethical merely because people will never agree on whom the courts should execute, or for what crime warrants the death penalty, then the rules need to change, not the punishment. A jury of people off the street should not make that decision.
On a case-to-case basis, experts in all fields pertaining to the perpetrator and the crime should look into all the facts of the case, into the background, upbringing, lifestyle, etc., of the person found guilty, and decide on the death penalty or life in prison, after debating the issue. That seems fairer to me than to execute someone who committed certain crimes the states decide deserve death as the punishment.
Because it is my belief that if you molest, rape, or kill a child, you deserve to die.
And good riddance!