R
Roy5
Guest
Generally, the death penalty should be avoided. There have been too many instances in which prisoners on ‘death row’ were found to be innocent.
.
Code:
There occasionally is a case, however, where the proof is absolute and the crime or crimes were heinous almost beyond description, such as serial killers. In such rare instances it would seem that the only just decision is capital punishment. How do such deliberate, serial killers deserve a sheltered life, three meals a day, and likely TV, books, etc., paid by us, the taxpayers, for the rest of their lives? The only exceptions in such unusual situations might be if the families of the victims call for life imprisonment instead.
A case in point. In Connecticut two home invaders ruthelessly raped a young teenager, murdered her and her mother and sister, tied up all three, then set the house on fire. The father was beaten badly but escaped to the basement and survived. He, too, generally doesn't favor the death penalty but considers this crime so outrageous that it is appropriate. The father of his murdered wife, a retired Methodist minister, who also is grandfather of the two murdered teenage girls, also disapproves of the death penalty generally, but he too sees it as appropriate under such circumstances.
I tend to agree with the victims' husband, father and grandfather. It makes at least as much sense as sending young men and women to some foreign land to kill other men and women (and children, too) that they don't know - often civilians who have done them no harm.