|
No scientific evidence to support death penalty: Ambassador Androulla
[DAILYTIMES.PK] European Union...the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, only without the Hapsburgs and the nifty uniforms and the dancing... (EU) Ambassador Androulla Kaminara said the European Union (EU) had a principled position against the death penalty  in all the circumstances and for all the cases that it was unnecessary.Addressing an event on the eve of world day against the death penalty, she said, "There is no valid scientific evidence to support that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. Instead, it is the certainty of being caught and punished that serves as a deterrent and of course actions to prevent such crimes from happening in the first place.The EU ambassador said,"The call for the death penalty might come from an impulse in reaction to a horrific crime. But as a society, we need to reflect deeper on what justice really means and what needs to be done for such crimes not to happen again. The performance that premiered today invites us to enter this discussion." "No scientific evidence? You got a dead guy (man or woman) murdered with malice aforethought. What do you do with the murderer with malice aforethought? You can toss him/her/it in jug and feed him/her/it until he/she/it dies of old age, or you can put the mentally deformed thing out of its misery and protect society at large. If it's being fed for the rest of its life, there's always the possibility that it can be sprung. Its cronies might bust it out; see lotsa ISIS murderers. Shopped judges might overcome its conviction; see Omar Saeed Sheikh. It might be released on "humanitarian" grounds -- say it got sick or something. Always there is the possibility that some lily-livered scum sucker will "feel sorry" the the nasty thing, forgetting the victim and its suffering because they're dead and out of the way, while the murderer ages and pokes his lower lip out and claims to have Found Jee-zus! Praise the Lord! And then there are the possibilities of politicians defining a "life" sentence as 20 or 25 years, with time off for good behavior. The most succinct and convincing argument in favor of the death penalty is that it cuts recidivism to zero. You can be sure they'll never, ever do it again. We don't have to be cruel about it. If you've ever seen a dog put down, you've seen them peacefully go to sleep, then stop breathing and their hearts stop. A bullet to the back of the head is probably quicker, but it is messier. Hanging is chancier; Blackjack Ketchum's head popped right off his body 130 years ago, which I'll betcha was pretty spectacular. If the drop's not figured right there's a chance the killer's going to dangle and dance. Gas is probably just as quick and painless as putting a dog down; lab animals are given carbon monoxide. The guillotine was originally designed to be quick and painless. The problem with putting murderers down isn't pain, but fright as they're walking that last mile. That and endless appeals. Is it really "justice" to put a murderer down thirty or forty years after the event? I'd call it unjust to the rest of us. Posted by: Fred 2020-10-12 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=584473 |