Democrat Hypocrisy on the Death Sentence

Ask yourself why so many Democrats are against the death penalty for murderers and yet support the murder of unborn babies and doctor assisted suicide?

In 1881, a dentist witnessed a drunkard getting electrocuted when he made contact with the terminals of an electrical generator. He then suggested that prisons use a form of electrocution to execute condemned prisoners. On August 6, 1890, William Kemmler was the first person executed in an electric chair. It took place in New York.

In the 1920s, the gas chamber was introduced as a form of execution. The use of gas chambers was banned in many states and countries after Nazi Germany used massive ones to murder millions of Jews during World War II.

In the late 1970s, lethal injection was introduced as a humane means of executing a prisoner, here in the United States.

Trending: Feinstein Guilty of Violation of Federal Act

However, in 1972, the Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 vote, ruled the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment, the death penalty in the United States was abolished and all death sentences were commuted to life in prison sentences.

In 1973, only one year after abolishing the death penalty for people convicted of heinous crimes, the same Supreme Court voted 7-2 to legalize the murdering of unborn children through abortion. Since the case of Roe v. Wade was decided on January 22, 1973 approximately 59,853,000 innocent children were brutally murdered and never allowed to see the light of day or draw their first breath of air.

Many of the methods used to abort a baby are a lot crueler and tortuous than any of the methods used to execute a condemned convict, but for convicts, it was deemed cruel and unusual punishment but not for the unborn. Hundreds of thousands of unborn children are poisoned with super-saline solutions or torn limb from limb while still alive, and yet so many liberals believe that executing a condemned convict over a period of several minutes is somehow worse.

In 1976, a number of states had enacted laws that eliminated the objections to the death penalty that were raised by the earlier Supreme Court and it was reinstated. Yet, not every state agreed and today only 31 states have the death penalty and most them use lethal injection, which is still drawing a great deal of criticism.

In 1997, Oregon voters approved the Death with Dignity Act by a narrow 51% to 49% margin. The act allowed for legalized doctor assisted suicide. Since that time, California, Colorado and California have also legalized doctor assisted suicide. Montana allows for doctor assisted suicide but it has to be approved by a court of law. In Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Nevada and Tennessee, the issue of assisted suicide is under consideration.

Put yourself in the place of William Petit of Cheshire, Connecticut. In 2007, Two men had invaded his home. They raped and murdered his wife, murdered his two daughters and thought they had killed him before setting the house on fire. Petit survived and was able to help identify the two men who were arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death.

That is until the Connecticut State Supreme Court betrayed him and his family by declaring the death penalty in Connecticut to be unconstitutional. In a 4-3 decision, the majority agreed that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and that it no longer fits with the values of our evolved society and that it no longer serves as a useful form of punishment.

Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers disagreed with the majority decision. In his dissent, he accused the majority ruling members of the court of being fundamentally flawed at every step of their ruling. She wrote:

“The majority’s determination that the death penalty is unconstitutional under our state’s constitution is based on a house of cards, falling under the slightest breath of scrutiny.”

“…the majority disregards the obvious: the legislature, which represents the people of the state and is the best indicator of contemporary societal mores, expressly retained the death penalty.” [Referring to pre-2012 crimes.]

Justice Carmen E. Espinoza also was a dissenter in the ruling saying that the death penalty did meet the current values of decency and punishment. She also encouraged the legislature to re-visit the issue by saying that the court’s decision did not necessarily ‘strike a dagger into the heart of the death penalty.’ In her dissent she wrote:

“Because the majority opinion has grounded its decision on the conclusion, albeit incorrect, that the death penalty no longer comports with evolving standards of decency, the legislature has the power to reenact the death penalty. As the majority recognizes, there is nothing that requires that the standards of decency evolve only in one direction.”

Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote a third dissent with Justice Espinosa stating:

“If the legislature, as the majority claims, had rejected the death penalty only on the ground that it is barbaric, excessive, arbitrary and discriminatory, then why would it have enacted a retention provision specifically allowing executions to go forward for all current death row inmates, and why would it have permitted future arrests, indictments, the commencement of trials, and executions to be carried out with respect to those who had not yet been charged with a capital crime but who had committed such a crime before the effective date of [the revised law]?”

The court’s decision affects 11 death row inmates including the two men who attacked the Petit family.

Petit responded to the state’s high court decision, saying:

“The dissenting justices clearly state how the four members of the majority have disregarded keystones of our governmental structure such as the separation of powers and the role of judicial precedent to reach the decision they hand down today. The death penalty and its application is a highly charged topic with profound emotional impact, particularly on the victims and their loved ones. Justice Espinosa, in her dissent especially, forcefully and compassionately recognizes that devastating impact.”

The death penalty is a very controversial issue with many people, liberals and conservatives. I know of many Christians who are against the death penalty but I am not one of them.

If the death penalty is so cruel and wrong, then why did God Himself give us His laws that required the death penalty for a number of crimes including murder and homosexuality? Yes, Jesus did fulfill the Law and made the Temple law no longer valid but He did not replace or do away with the criminal or corporal laws of the Old Testament. If He had then the Ten Commandments no longer are valid, are they?

When the harlot was about to be stoned to death, Jesus told the crowd that let him who is without sin cast the first stone and then forgave the harlot and told her to go and sin no more. He did not abolish the death penalty rather he was making a point that we are all sinners and look at our own sins and that we need to be careful about accusing and judging others.

True that God is a God of love and Jesus preached love, but God is also a God of justice who will one day again judge the world. He raises up nations and He brings down nations, as He is currently doing to America for turning away from Him.

Saying all of that, I believe that the death penalty is more just and humane than bilking taxpayers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars to allow criminals to rot in jail for the rest of their lives. I also believe that executions should be made public because public executions do serve as a deterrent to some who will think twice before committing murder, thus saving lives.

The problem with our penal system today is that too many bleeding hearts have made it impossible to actually punishment criminals for their crimes. They are far more concerned with the treatment of criminals than they are with their victims and the family of the victims. Ironically many of these are the same bleeding-heart liberals that support murdering millions of unborn children.

How many times have you heard of someone robbing, beating, raping or murdering someone while they were out on parole or probation? A 25-year sentence usually means that the person could be released in as little as 5 to 7 years. What kind of deterrent is that? A 25-year sentence should mean 25 years. Yes, you guessed it, I’m 100% against parole or probation because I’ve seen and heard of far too many people being victimized by criminals who are freed early.

Perhaps if our penal system did what it’s supposed to do and stopped letting everyone out of prison early, we may not have as much crime. There are many criminals who say that jail is not a deterrent, especially for a first offense because they know they’ll walk with little or no time served. But if they knew that early release is no longer an option and that they’ll be serving their full sentence, then maybe they’ll start thinking twice before committing the crime.

I say it’s time to institute ‘do the crime – do the time’ or ‘you take a life – you forfeit your life.’

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

R.L. David Jolly holds a B.S. in Wildlife Biology and an M.S. in Biology – Population Genetics. He has worked in a number of fields, giving him a broad perspective on life, business, economics and politics. He is a very conservative Christian, husband, father and grandfather who cares deeply for his Savior, family and the future of our troubled nation.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.