February 2008 - Editorial - When is a death sentence not a death sentence?

Well, David has another good subject for some discussion in this month's editorial. I have never understood how a state could not have a death penalty for certain crimes. If someone hurts my children, they had better pray the police catch them and give them the death penalty because it will be a lot quicker and less painful than what I will do to them.

I really like the way the death penalty is set up currently, at least in Texas. It is limited to certain crimes (not as many as I would appply it to, but I can certainly understand the limits) and requires good proof. Many people feel the long time on death row (20 years is not uncommon) is a problem, and many feel the release for new evidence is reason to do away with the death penalty. I see both of these as proof that the system works. I do not want to execute someone who might be innocent, or even guilty if we did not do our jobs correctly. Let them have the appeals and check the scientific evidence. Let them have a new appeal if ther is a new scientific technique which might make a difference. ANd if they are proven guilty, and proven to have had their rights upheld, then we execute them in the most humane manner possible. Yes, it might cause them some pain and maybe is not totally humane (how can an execution be humane?) but it is as good as we can get right now.

And one fo the things I really like was our last addition to the death penalty. If a person has been convicted of child molestation a second time, he is eligble for the death penalty. And in Texas, we do execute them (when the Supreme Court lets us).