Fire up old Sparky!

In a letter to the editor in yesterday's Dallas Morning News, David Atwood of Houston decries the death penalty. Let's examine his arguments and see how logical they are.

He says:

"The death penalty does nothing to reduce violent crime. It may exacerbate it. It is clearly an expensive distraction from true crime-reducing methods."

My contention is that the death penalty itself doesn't deter crime, but carrying it out consistently and often would. If we executed everyone who deserved it in a timely manner, I'm quite certain we'd see a dramatic reduction in capital crimes. Iran has very few thieves -- they cut off their hands in the public square every time they're caught. The death penalty deters crime every time it's used -- a dead murderer cannot commit another murder; ergo, the death penalty, when carried out, deters crime. If Mr. Atwood has a real-life example to refute my contention, I'd surely like to hear it!

Looking at Mr. Atwood's argument from another angle, I say he cannot possibly know how many crimes have been prevented because of the death penalty. Anyone who has been deterred from killing another because of fear of his own death is not likely to go about boasting of the fact. As for it being expensive, it need not be -- it's surely cheaper than providing room and board, medical care, legal fees, and heaven only knows what else for 75 years.

Mr. Atwood is going to have to do a little more explaining on his next rhetoric, because I don't "clearly" see that it "distracts" from "true-crime-reducing methods." What "true crime-reducing methods" are we talking about here? Counseling -- "Now, you know it's not nice to kill people." Yeah, I'm sure that will work. Job training -- "If I only had a job these homicidal tendencies would go away." Want to take that chance? Mood-altering drugs -- "I'm all better now. I don't need these drugs anymore," he said just before he went on a rampage.

He says:

"When Texas executes someone, it becomes a killer itself, no better than the murderer who is being executed. If there was ever a premeditated, cold-blooded murder, it is an execution."

Most of us are well able to draw a moral distinction between kidnapping, torturing, raping, and burying alive a 7-year-old child and lawfully executing the animal who perpetrated the crime. If Mr. Atwood cannot, he has a serious moral problem himself. Individual executions are not "premeditated." They are lawful sentences for heinous crimes. They are not cold-blooded -- cold-blooded is allowing a dangerous criminal to be loosed upon innocent victims. They are not murder -- murder is the unlawful taking of life. By his argument, I don't guess we can use any type of punishment without becoming like criminals ourselves. If we incarcerate them, are we not guilty of holding hostages? If we fine them, are we not guilty of robbery? If we sentence them to community service, are we not guilty of enslaving them?

God forbid anything like this should happen, but I wonder if Mr. Atwood would change his mind if his little son were kidnapped, raped, and beheaded as John Walsh's son was? If his daughter were raped and stabbed to death by a Ted Bundy? If his teenage son were held hostage and sodomized repeatedly, then killed and cannibalized by a John Wayne Gacy? If his college age child were gunned down by a nutcase while attending classes? If his mentally disabled sister were lured to a field by two co-workers, raped and murdered? If his daughter were hit over the head with a rock and killed by the jealous girlfriend of a boy she had dated? If his pregnant wife were murdered so her unborn child could be stolen? If his brother were shot and killed because some thug wanted his car?

See, Mr. Atwood, my contention is that there are people among us who deserve to die, and it's the state's responsibility to see that they do!