Down the slippery slope.
Washington State was supposed to have an execution of a double murderer this weekend, but our Supreme Court put a stay on it at the last moment.
I’m not a really big fan of the death penalty, but that is just a mild “nuance” I have with the method of carrying it out, so we’ll move beyond that for this post.
The piece of human refuse tortured and killed a woman named Holly Washa back in 1992. He now says he has a mental disorder that was diagnosed during the latter part of the 18 years he sat on death row that should preclude the state from poking him with the needle.
And now we have people objecting to the death penalty because of the length of time between the sentenceing and the carrying out of said sentence.
While I don’t object to waiting until we are quadruply sure that the defendant is actually guilty of the crime, 18 years is just too damn long. Death sentences should be given the highest priority in the criminal justice system and not have court dates assigned a year out from the request for the date.
With modern forensic technology, we can get results in weeks or even days instead of months. There is no need to find for the defendant’s council that some clemency hearing needs to be scheduled a year in advance while the evidence is “examined” (aka: Hoping something will happen to it during the time span that will get the guilty party a new trial).
Another objection to the execution is coming from the anti-Lethal Injection folks. They say it is inhumane to poke someone with a needle in order to kill them because it might hurt.
Oddly enough, last November Washington State voters gaves the thumbs-up to “Death with Dignity” laws, wherein a doctor uses a needle to inject damn near the same toxic cocktail into people with debilitating pain and/or terminal illnesses.
I leave that argument to y’all to figure out since I haven’t got a damn clue.
This man committed a violent, torturous murder. He doesn’t even contest that part of it. His contest is that during his drawn out court process, caused by his numerous appeals, he has become too “mentally ill” to execute and that he should have his sentence commuted to Life w/o parole. I say up the doesage, include an decent quantity of opiate in the mix and he’ll more than likely go out smiling and then everyone can go home.
Afterwards, we need to stream line the Death Penalty review process.
I disagree with the death penalty not on moral grounds (certain people need to be taken out of the gene pool) but due to the fact that the government has shown it is completely inept at justice as it is and I do not trust them to mete out the ultimate punishment fairly and accurately.
However, when it comes to the actual execution, I’m a big fan of the 12 gauge, 00 Buck to the back of the skull. Messy, but painless and quick. The sad part is that people confuse the messy part with ‘cruel’ when a nice, sterile needle (why sterile? Are they afraid of the prisoner getting an infection before they die?) and toxic cocktail, while being prettier to look at, can be excruciating if not done properly.
Of course, most anti-death penalty people just don’t like the idea of killing and the method has nothing to do with it. Every day, a million or so people go in for some sort of surgery and are knocked out cold while doctors cut and tear into their bodies and they don’t generally remember nor feel a thing. A little anesthesia and the death row inmate won’t feel a thing, regardless if it’s a shotgun blast or a slow suffocation when you stop their lungs from working.
Just don’t expect too much consistency from the anti’s, though.
I remember when the gallows at Walla Walla were still use. I believe it was the guy who killed a mother, daughter and their friend. I forgot his name. It took forever to finally do it and the hangman was ready and waiting. And if I remember correctly, Kerry Brock aka Mrs. Siegenthaler was a press witness. The reporter was rather pale and shaky afterwards.
To the State of Washington at the time, good job. Even though the process took way to long.
So bring back the rope and trap door.
I read sometime back that Britain had a finite length of time after a conviction (like, 6 months, IIRC) for a defendant to convince another judge that his case warranted review or re-trial. If he couldn’t make that happen within that timespan, he begins serving the original sentence.
And there’s another twist: if a defendant wins another trial, the judge can impose a harsher sentence if he thinks it’s warranted. There’s no guarantee that an appeal will reduce the original sentence. Kinda like double or nothing. “Do you feel lucky, punk?”