The one problem I have with capital punishment is that all too often an innocent defendant is convicted because he or she has had inferior legal counsel or because the evidence has been tainted.
However, if there is absolutely no doubt of a murderer's guilt I think a swift punishment equal to the crime is called for.
There wasn't much doubt that Michael Ross was guilty of murdering eight women, although he was convicted of killing four and raping a few of them. The fact that he was imprisoned in Connecticut for some twenty odd years before his sentence was carried out is a tribute to the magnitude of capital punishment.
His death by lethal injection was witnessed by some members of his victims' families among others.
Some viewers were interviewed by the press and some were apparently appalled that Ross showed no remorse and gave no explanation for his actions.
That his death was relatively painless was painful for the victims' relatives.
They wanted to hear some screaming as he had made those young women scream.
Michael Ross's death should not have been so peaceful.
So we have a further dilemma swirling around the whole capital punishment issue. Should we even bother to snuff out the lights of those capable of heinous crimes unless we can do it in a suitably barbaric manner? Do we really want our worst killers dozing off like aged Fidos in the vet's office? Or do we want a little blood and gore and terror to make us feel that justice has been served?
No comments:
Post a Comment