I just read an article about a man who raped and murdered a college girl a couple of years ago. The jury decided that he should get the death penalty. The judge has to decide on the death penalty or life without parole.
What I found interesting was that the argument the defending attorney made was that the man was of "low intelligence" and 10 points away from being mentally retarded. So, if the man is on the lower side of the intellectual food chain, it's more excusable? "Forgive him, he's just stupid" is what you're saying?
You know how when an animal--any animal--kills a person, that animal is killed? Why do we kill the animal? I mean, it's just a dumb animal, right? It's just stupid. It didn't know better. Shouldn't we forgive killers if they are too stupid to understand? Right? No. They kill the animals because they don't know any better and could do it again. And it's not humane to keep them boxed up and contained for the rest of its life.
So here was have a human being who killed a girl, and his punishment is between life in prison and death. I don't really care either way, honestly. He committed a crime and he's being punished. But I just had to shake my head at the attorney for making such a ridiculous claim.
People in general are always arguing over the captivity of animals, but never complain when it's time to kill a murdering animal. No one rants over the incarceration of human beings, but throw a fit over the death penalty.
I don't understand the mentality of the general public.
2 comments:
Not to mention it also costs the rest of us money to keep those people "boxed up" for the rest of their lives! We're paying their room and board... how does that make sense?
p.s. I love this post Allie!
Haven't you ever heard of the Twinkie defense? It happened in the great city of San Fransisco and has a connection the famous Harvey Milk. Look it up. I mean, how much more stupid can you get when you say "The Twinkie made me kill him!"
Post a Comment