so ruining a child physically, mentally, and emotionally for the rest of their lives is heinous, but certainly not egregious enough to warrant the death penalty?Obama wrote:I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution.
executing them is not punishment? why should they be allowed to live on the taxpayer's dollar until they die naturally? why do we even have a death penalty in some states? these people are sentenced with the death penalty and live for free on death row until their bodies decide it's time for them to kick the bucket.McCain wrote:The ruling is an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.
here's a cheaper solution, get me a rifle, put every inmate on death row in a fenced off football field, position me in a watchtower, and let me pick them off one by one. make it challenging, cover them in simple syrup and launch a few beehives onto the field and let them run around.
