Last week, WDRB.com's John David Dyche made the case for abolishing the death penalty. His argument primarily revolved around his assertion that it's "not always carried out consistently, economically, effectively, or with absolute assurance of guilt."
He's correct on all those points. But rather than do away with it altogether, why can't we instead work on correcting those problems? You see, I favor the death penalty because, in my view, some crimes are just so heinous that the perpetrator forfeits any further right to exist. Period.
Yes, there have been times when capital punishment has been carried out in error. But that's a flaw in the application of the punishment - not the punishment itself. In many cases, the guilt of the accused is so clear and obvious as to be utterly irrefutable.
And as for the argument that it costs fortunes to prosecute capital cases, again I agree. But a good deal of that money is spent conducting endless appeals that have no earthly chance of success.
We should administer the death penalty sparingly -- and consistently. But if we restrict it to instances where the crime is sufficiently abhorrent and there is absolute assurance of guilt beyond any doubt - and then carry it out in a swift and timely manner - it will serve the purpose it was intended to serve, and protect the law-abiding members of our society.
I'm Bill Lamb and that's my Point of View.