The Cincinnati Enquirer |
Editorial Page
|
Sunday, March 15, 1998 |
| A few readers on Sunday's letters page [Mar.
8] were against the death penalty. If they, as the intended and sure victims
of murder, had a gun, would they defend themselves when a criminal fires
shots? Of course.
Many times, innocent victims defending themselves in a shoot-out return fire that also kills the criminal and there are two funerals. The law as written puts a weapon in the dead person's hand with the ultimate penalty of the law to even the score. We need a second prompt funeral by the law. The Bible, from which most of our ethical laws are based, dictates "Thou shall not kill" (meaning me as an individual), and "an eye for an eye" (meaning authority of the people to exact justice". One writer complained the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Who in God's kingdom, or ours, intended it to be a deterrent? |
The laws make it clear the penalty is for
murder. It would be somewhat of a by-product deterrent if the law had more
teeth in it.
Another writer said revenge was God's. Why not let God revenge for all crimes -theft, bombings, brutal beatings, etc., and go our merry way when victimized? We could vote to cancel all laws and dismiss Congress. The criminal was legally prosecuted and sentenced to death by his peers as required by law. The intent of the law is violated by the usual 10 years of granted, frivolous, repeated appeals and aided by absurd jurors from the Supreme Court on down. Let justice be served honestly. Dave Sharp
|
 |
 |
