California, the sunny and might I add beautiful State I am from, currently has the death penalty. For as long as I can recall, though I do not remember ever being tested, quizzed or questioned in school as to it's social, ethical, moral, political, ramifications, nor the date of it's initial inception in California's judicial system. I just know that it has always been something floating around in the background, and not really at the forefront of my daily thoughts or cares (Seeing as I am a law abiding citizen, or at least for the most part). Yet unlike a lot of people in this world I strongly do believe in the death penalty and actually support it's more frequent use, especially during the troubled times we live in now with crime ever on the rise. As there are a great deal of criminals out there, murderers, serial rapists, sexual sadists, child molesters, torturers and so on, that in my opinion need to be executed for their crimes.
For regardless of your stance on the issue, there are just certain crimes or acts of violence, that are so heinous, so utterly monstrous in nature, that there can be no other punishment. Nor do I believe that there can or should be any kind of forgiveness for certain types of crimes, nor is there a suitable form of rehabilitation possible for certain criminals as well. A prime example of why I feel this way would be the thankfully late demented serial killer/cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer. For this was a man who not only drugged, sexually assaulted/raped, mutilated, dismembered and killed his victims, he actually ate some of them! This is a person, who no matter how much therapy, drugs or counseling he receives, will never be normal or get better! Nor would anyone who is sane, under any realistic conditions feel even remotely safe with such a person running around or living in their neighborhood. Plus this person's crimes were so grave in nature to begin with, that there cannot be any sort of forgiveness for the numerous macabre acts Mr. Dahmer committed during a several year period. Which is why such individuals such as him need to be executed, for their crimes and their debt to society that can never be repaid for you can't un-murder someone.
Of course Jeffrey Dahmer is a very extreme case, and not every one's crimes are so blatantly evil or even as obvious. Sometimes evil acts are much more camouflaged and not so black and white in their appearance. Which is why I would suggest something a little different in terms of the the way that death sentences be handed out in the future. My suggestion is that only in the cases where the individuals guilt is undeniable, that an automatic death sentence be swiftly carried out. Without the condemned being able to appeal the Judge's verdict, which incidentally would save the tax payers a great deal of money and time. As death row appeal cases sometimes take years to litigate and cost the tax payers millions upon millions of dollars, which can be better spent on other programs and citizens truly in need. Said clear cut cases I am referring two would be when the defendant is caught on surveillance tapes, or there are a multitude of unbiased eye witnesses, and their can be no question of guilt. Like when a person goes to a crowded shopping mall or their former place of employment and opens fire on the people therein, whose image during the act is captured multiple times from multiple surveillance cameras. Clearly showing exactly what transpired. In cases specifically like this there can be no misunderstanding, no mistaken identity, no question of guilt, and no racial bias.
Which is another whole kettle of fish, but an important point to bring up. For a very real and frighteningly true statistic is how uneven death sentences are handed out in regards to race. Case in point; Texas currently has the highest amount of criminals sentenced to death and executed in the entire United States. But the vast majority of the criminals being executed in that state are black men, while their white criminal counterparts are spared death row despite the fact that they often committed the same exact crime under very similar circumstances. Yet because they are not black, and the judges and juries in Texas appear to be biased, they are not sentenced to death. Though it is not only Texas that does this, as evidence from other states, including California shows that minority criminal offenders get heavier sentences in general than non minority criminals do for the same crime. Which clearly shows a monumental breakdown in the system, as well as severe racial prejudice if not outright racism. Therefore my suggestions involving only clear cut cases would effectively eradicate this problem, or at least it partially would in such cases. For not all the crimes committed in the US are committed under the watchful eye of security cameras, plus sometimes the very nature of the crime or the crime itself can be ambiguous. Which is why I am only really supporting the (automatic) death penalty in cases similar to what I have just described above. Cases and situations where there is absolutely no question of doubt and the evidence is irrefutable, like with surveillance tapes, DNA evidence and/or where the criminal actually confessed to their crime (and is not an insane person confessing to a crime they didn't commit).
In fact I would even take it one step further and say that all criminals sentenced to death should automatically have new test vaccines and experimental drugs tested on them before their sentence is carried out. And then upon their death all of their viable organs should be harvested and donated to those in need awaiting organ transplants. Would would be a very small attempt to repay their debt to society as it is the closest you will ever get to un-murdering someone, saving a life. Although I have to admit that realistically this could be seen as a form of torture by most people, including myself. As experimental drug trials or vaccine trial could be extremely painful, physically or mentally debilitating and even result in accidental death in some cases. Plus I also strongly fear that in the case of criminal's organs being harvested for those in need, certain criminals who happen to be perfect matches for wealthy or powerful individuals, could suddenly find themselves on death row or we could have innocent people framed and sentenced just so their organs could be harvested. Which already happens to a certain degree on the organ black market, butr just sentences someone to die is a waste of the organs.
Still crime is a real problem in today's world, and a lot of people say that the death penalty is just not an adequate deterrent. Which may or may not be the case, but my point is that regardless of whether it is a deterrent or not. These criminal acts cannot go unpunished and such individuals need not be on the face of the earth for any longer than necessary. Execution simply removes them and the possible threat of their existence and committing a similar crime again. The alternative is paying to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives, with cable TV, free Internet, weight rooms and free room and board, or having to release them early because the prisons are so crowded. Thus giving them the change to kill, rape, torture and murder innocent people all over again, which is unacceptable. Such criminals have to be permanently removed from society, and simply locking them up for life and throwing away the key is not enough.
