Thirty three years ago he killed a policeman during a traffic stop. No argument. The crime took place in 1978 and the conviction in 1981. And that is the problem I have.
I was for the death penalty before I was against it. I am still against it. But here is my dilemma: I have no moral objection to killing someone who has purposely and brutally killed someone else. Ted Bundy? Kill him. Charles Manson? Kill him. But do it promptly. Where no doubt, not reasonable doubt, is present, after conviction just take them behind the courthouse and kill them.
My objection is found in the dozens of wrong convictions, the dozens of 30 year waits on death row, the system tainted by racism, the uneven application of penalty by state, and probably more. So now I am against the death penalty because it has not and apparently cannot be applied fairly and justly. I think we should cancel all death penalties in every state, commute the sentences to life, and let the innocent prove themselves.
Besides, it cost too much to execute someone. Far cheaper to keep them in prison for life. We demean ourselves before the world for killing innocent people in the name of justice. We have already lost the moral high ground in many ways so why not take a bit back?
Manuel Valle? Thirty years ago he should have been taken out behind the courthouse and shot. Today he should be left to die a slow and lonely death on death row. Let him spend the rest of his miserable life thinking about the life he could have had, and the life he took.
Image: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/InmatePhotos/8/853220.jpg
Manuel Valle: http://www.postonpolitics.com/2011/08/manuel-valle-execution-set-for-sept-6/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment