End of the Death Penalty

Recently the Washington Governor, Jay Inslee has refused to use the death penalty. This should not come really as a surprise because in the last six years, six states have outlawed the death penalty. Now there is a total of eighteen states that have outlawed the death penalty. However, some states have just refused to use capital punishment which saves everyone from dealing with the legal trouble. The consequence of not outlawing the death penalty is that the next governor can exercise that right.

 

So Governor Inslee is not just letting these prisoners go free he is just letting them do prison time. One of his points that he mentioned in The New York Times had to with the taxpayers not paying for them. However, I would like to see how much more money the residents of Washington would be spending to keep all the death row criminals alive in prison. Or if their prisons are going to start being overpopulated like California Prisons. Could there be a spike in crime in Washington because the worst you can get now is a life sentence. There could be a potential blow back that Washington is not ready for, but since they did not change any laws I guess they could start reenacting the death penalty.

 

Washington is known to be a liberal state which works well with what the Governor Inslee is doing. Looking back to the 2012 election, The Seattle Times said that fifty six percent of voters voted for the Democratic party. Washington has also got a lot of news cover from legalizing marijuana. I think it is pretty safe to say that the state government is liberal.

 

“There are too many flaws in the system,”  is what Governor Inslee said as he announced that he was not going to act on the death penalty. He also said, ““And when the ultimate decision is death, there is too much at stake to accept an imperfect system.”

 

“Jay Rodne, the ranking Republican on the Washington House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee, criticized Mr. Inslee’s announcement, saying that it came “out of the blue” and that the governor was taking into his own hands a matter that should be left to lawmakers.” New York Times

 

Besides the fact that Washington is not using the death penalty, other political issues have risen. Mr. Ronde has said “If there is support for abolition of the death penalty in Washington, then let’s have hearings and let’s have a vote,” and “I think this is cruel to families of the victims,” he added. “Justice should not be, basically, put on hiatus.” So since Washington is a liberal state why would they not try and change the law. I feel this shows doubt that it would not pass because he is simply by-passing the system. If Jay Inslee feels that capital punishment is unfair then why not outlaw it so that no one has to go through that process further down the road if the next governor is in favor of the death penalty.

 

Hearing about this at first surprised me. However, other states like Oregon and Colorado have already said that they will not act on the death penalty. Could this be the start of the end of the death penalty?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to End of the Death Penalty

  1. I am a key believer in the death penalty. It is in my opinion a deterrent of crime. If every state had the option of the death penalty and made it less of a hassle of going through the process of the courts more and more people will be put to death and because of this people who are thinking about committing acts of violence that will result in the death penalty, will stop and think before acting. Another reason why the death penalty should be allowed in every state is because it is a cheaper alternative then jeeping the inmates on death row.

  2. beyers2013 says:

    When I was 13 years old, my older sister was murdered by someone she loved. The scum that murdered her was a policeman. My parents tried to obtain justice, but because my mother continuously received death threats against our family, she stopped. She had to think of her remaining, living children. She died in 2012 and never saw that bastard pay for his crime. In the meantime, he murdered two more people several months after he took my sisters life. He eventually retired from the police force and now lives a quiet life while his victims’ families had no recourse and suffered tremendous losses. None of the people he killed were committing any crimes and were all (except for my sister whose case was under investigation because of the suspicious circumstances involved) declared “accidental” in nature.

    While I realize my story is of little consequence to anyone else, and with all due respect to human life and to those of you who are against the death penalty, I am totally for it. If I could have pulled a switch, injected him, or had the opportunity to participate in a firing squad just to watch the scum that murdered my sister get what he has coming, I would gladly do it–with no guilt or remorse. Because of someone who possessed power and who abused it, each family suffered.

    Nevertheless, it is very important to me that those who read my comments understand that regardless of what that particular policeman did, I maintain a tremendous respect for those who put their lives on the line everyday to protect and serve our society. My contempt is for this one person. However, because I understand what it is like to lose someone you love to totally senseless violence, I and I am sure many others who have survived this type of violence firmly believe that if you needlessly take a life, you must forfeit yours.

  3. I have no problem with the principle of the death penalty. People like Lemuel Smith don’t need to share the planet with the rest of us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuel_Smith)

    That said, if the state is going to take the life of its citizens for their crimes it needs to be 100 percent certain every time. The racism and prosecutorial misconduct rampant in the criminal justice system is well-documented. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/prosecutorial-misconduct-new-orleans-louisiana_n_3529891.html) Crime labs fabricate evidence.
    (http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Forensic-Science-Misconduct.php)

    Since the state clearly cannot carry out criminal justice at anywhere near the level of perfection it should be in capital punishment cases, it should stop trying.

  4. jenny9213 says:

    What occurs when an innocent human being is executed? Society (those that actually know) is filled with guilt and become repulsed at the idea of the death penalty but those thoughts are completely forgotten when another person is murdered and they have someone to blame whether they’re guilty or not. Society is easily swayed between being horrified that a possibility exist that innocent humans are executed and wanting revenge for a victim(s).
    Revenge reminds me of the saying “An eye for an eye”. Whenever I think of this phrase it brings to mind that perhaps society will like us to forget civilization in order to obtain justice. Is that the worth of justice? What we’ve upheld throughout time and time again; that we are different from animals because we are civilized.
    Two arguments that have always seemed inconceivable to me and are reiterated over and over for the permitting of capital punishment are the deterrent of crime and the biggest argument at fault for me is: justice is better served. The notion that capital punishment deters crime is indeed quite the opposite. In the following, it shows a sizable difference in murder rates between the states that have the death penalty and those that don’t. The facts may stop in 2006 in these statistics but it is reasonable to say that the percent will continue to be in favor of the states with non- death penalty.
    http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=82
    Considering the faultiest argument for me in capital punishment, I honestly believe that no one wins. Considering that most of the time there is a possibility that the convicted to death may be innocent. Personally, life sentences may not be enough for the family and friends of the victim(s) after a loss but it is the only solution that I find that may salvage a person convicted and even those that wish for their conviction in case it is later found out that they are indeed innocent of the crime. Not only that, but this brings me to the beginning, “An eye for an eye.” What makes it alright for the decision makers to take another human being from their mother, father, sister, brother, and/or friends? Two negatives aren’t making a positive but rather still obtaining a negative. Personally, I believe that the life sentence is certainly much more humane than taking a life for another life and isn’t as terrible as executing an innocent person.
    The thought that another human being or a group of human beings are able to decide the death of someone because it supposedly deters crime and serves true justice is appalling. If I simplify it, the execution of someone is because the life sentence seems too weak to societies liking. Take into consideration, that these are only two arguments in this controversial topic that has been at opposition for longer than my life. You may be at one of the end’s of the spectrum of this topic or even in the middle but for me it is clear that I am completely at opposition of the death penalty.

Leave a Reply