Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Justice Served

There has been a lot of recent whining about the death penalty, based on a couple cases. But today we saw the death penalty serve its primary purpose: justice. The state of Texas executed Lawrence Russell Brewer for the incredibly vicious torture and murder of James Byrd back in 1998. In case you've forgotten, here's an account of the crime.
On June 7, 1998, Byrd, age 49, accepted a ride from Shawn Berry (age 24), Lawrence Brewer (age 31), and John King (age 23). Berry, who was driving, was acquainted with Byrd from around town. Instead of taking Byrd home, the three men took Byrd to a remote county road out of town, beat him with anything they could find, urinated on his unconscious body, chained him by his ankles to their pickup truck dragging him for three miles. Brewer later claimed that Byrd's throat had been slashed by Berry before he was dragged. However, forensic evidence suggests that Byrd had been attempting to keep his head up while being dragged, and an autopsy suggested that Byrd was alive during much of the dragging. Byrd died after his right arm and head were severed after his body hit a culvert. His body had caught the culvert on the side of the road, resulting in Byrd's decapitation.

Berry, Brewer, and King dumped their victim's mutilated remains in front of an African-American cemetery on Huff Creek Road; the three men then went to a barbecue.
Death penalty opponents often call execution "barbaric." In my opinion it is barbaric to allow those who would commit such a crime to go on living. It took a ridiculously long 13 years to execute just one of the murderers, but better late than never.

5 comments:

  1. until we can avoid executing men like troy davis, you simply cannot call the death penalty a good idea. Better a thousand evil men live to ninety behind bars than one innocent be executed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "until we can avoid executing men like troy davis"

    Nonsense. The evidence that Troy Davis was guilty is overwhelming. Despite 20 years of appeals and reviews of the case, no one can find anything that would convince a court to overturn the verdict or even reduce the penalty.

    My heart doesn't bleed for a murderer like Troy Davis. The evidence indicates that he got what he deserved, even though it took too long to carry out the sentence.

    "you simply cannot call the death penalty a good idea."

    I can and I do. The main problems with the death penalty are in its application, which can and should be addressed. But that's irrelevant to the main reason to support it, which is that certain crimes deserve the ultimate penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The evidence indicates he got what he deserved"

    No it doesn't. Seven eyewitnesses have recanted the testimony they gave at trial. This very clearly casts reasonable double on his conviction, and should be enough to spare his life, if not get him out of jail entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "No it doesn't. Seven eyewitnesses have recanted the testimony they gave at trial. This very clearly casts reasonable double on his conviction, and should be enough to spare his life, if not get him out of jail entirely."

    Try reading something other than pro-Davis material. I once held the same opinion, but the weight of the evidence is overwhelming that Davis is guilty.

    Explain why there is no ringing dissent from even one liberal member of the Supreme Court regarding the Davis execution. If you want to continue to pretend that there were reasonable doubts about Davis' guilt, that's your option.

    ReplyDelete
  5. UNRR. The only way "fairness" can be justified is by redefining it based on the burden of life and how much more percentage-wise the poor have to pay for the basics. Just as Mr Forth says above.

    But you've stated it clearly: what could be more fair than everyone paying the exact same proportional share on their income? It is the definition of fairness.

    Anon points out the residential alarm system monitoring
    fanuc repair
    first political hurdle: we would still have to offer some deduction for the lowest incomes. I don't have a problem with that, and it should be enough to satisfy people like Mr Forth.

    ReplyDelete