An Eye For An Eye, A Tooth For A Tooth

The United States Supreme Court made two very important ruling this week. The first ruling states that convicted child molesters cannot be put to death. And the second concerns execution methods. The Court held that the drug combination used to execute condemned inmates does not violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusually punishment.

I strongly disagree with the Court in the ruling concerning the child molesters. By definition that includes disagreeing with opponents of the death penalty. Opponents claim that the death penalty does not deter anyone from committing the same crime. I strongly disagree. I believe that the death penalty is a 100 per cent deterrent. I have yet to see someone that has been executed for murder come back from the dead and commit another crime. By anyone's math that is a 100 per cent deterrent.

I do not think the death penalty should be an easy option for the prosecution. Certain safe guards should be in place to prevent the execution of innocent persons. I think the death penalty should apply to anyone caught on camera committing a heinous crime. A camera does not lie. A camera cannot get emotional and misidentify someone. A camera does not forget. The killing of a store clerk, caught on camera, should be a capital offence. In the case of the rape of a child, I can see no reason for the DNA of a man/woman to be found on the genitals of a child under the age of 12. To me that is proof enough, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the person is guilty of child rape.

It has often been said that there is no cure for pedophilia. I beg to differ. There is a cure that is 100 per cent effective. This cure should be available to any child molester upon his third conviction. The cure? The death penalty. Once this cure is administered to the child molester he/she will not molest any other child on this earth. That is a 100 per cent guarantee.

As for the method of execution... Here in the United States we have gone though various methods of committing state sanctioned murder. At one time we burned people alive at the stake. During another era it was common to hang people, even for the petty offence of stealing a horse . From there we progressed to firing squad. Later as we became more "civilized" and we turned to poison gas and electrocution. Now modern times call for the victim to be killed via a cocktail of drugs designed to make death painless.

Here is where I really take offence at the death penalty. PAINLESS? PAINLESS? Most people on death row tortured their victims before letting them die. Why? Yes why, should I care how much pain they go through before dying? Where is the punishment in "painless"? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. As you sow, so shall you reap.

The United States Supreme Court should have ruled that the state cannot inflict more than twice the mount of pain as that inflicted upon the original victim. Or, in the alternative, the state should condemn the convicted to the same death as that of the original victim. But to punish the criminal with "painless death" is an affront to the victim.

Many of you will claim I am barbaric. Some will say I am out of touch with reality. But more than 50 per cent of you will agree with me. That is a fact.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pancho Villa - a bleeding heart liberal Revolutionary.

Work with nature - plant a tree for more oxygen and less pollution.

<a href="http://www.saintdiva.com/page.php?11">Save $$ on gas here</a>