I realize raising such touchy subjects on a blog can be detrimental to friendships, here it goes.
Disclaimer: We are all allowed an opinion. If you don't agree with mine, that's great. I appreciate and respect the differences of opinions. So, do not crucify me for mine. If you have a solid opinion and don't want to hear mine, then don't continue to read. Stop.
"I believe that in the circumstances he raises a significant question as to whether his execution would constitute cruel and unusual punishment."
How is this cruel and unusual? You're 76 years old. You've been convicted of a crime that you committed. You've been on death row for 23 years and are about to be executed. Your "plea" is that you're "too old and feeble" to be executed. Now, if we had actually executed him when he was convicted 23 years ago, he would not be too "old and feeble".
The article continues to say, "Over the years, some justices on the Supreme Court have expressed interest in deciding whether a long stay on death row can be unconstitutionally cruel."
So don't let them STAY long on DEATH row. Isn't the point behind capital punishment a death sentence? I've often wondered, and in all honesty, desired to understand the reasoning behind such extended stays on death row. Someone who knows the law can perhaps enlighten me on this, but is there a "structured amount of time" that a person has to be on death row before they are executed?
When we lived in Saudi Arabia, a country who actively supports and goes through with capital punishment, their crime rate was 3%. Three percent. Now granted, they didn't have the judicial system we have and people suspected of a crime "may not" get a fair trial, but still. They had a law and they utilized it.
I'm just sayin'....
Not sure why this got me so fiesty today....
0 comments:
Post a Comment