Knoxville UU shooting
My emotional reaction to the shooting at the UU church in Knoxville is no different from any other decent-minded person's. But it does give me a chance to explain why I'm against the death penalty under any circumstances. After all, this guy walked into a church where 200 people were watching a children's play, and opened fire with a shotgun, simply because the church had liberal views and accepted gays. If there was ever a senseless act of murder worthy of the death penalty, this would be it, right?
In any death penalty case, one thing can be said with absolute certainty: The accused is either guilty or innocent. If he (almost always he) is innocent, then a guilty verdict is the worst miscarriage of justice possible, because the court has decided to execute someone for a crime he did not commit. This situation must be avoided at all costs. If the accused is innocent and acquitted, then justice has been served. If the accused is guilty and he is acquitted, a miscarriage of justice has also occurred, but one not as tragic as the above.
That leaves only the case of the accused being guilty and being convicted. Jim D. Adkisson is a suspect in a crime committed in front of 200 witnesses, having left a note beforehand stating his intention and hate- and bigotry-driven motives. I believe his guilt and his eventual conviction are certain. And I believe he should not be executed.
Is this some oh-that-poor-tormented-soul case of turning the other cheek? Hardly. Put simply, hanging is too good for him. Let him spend the rest of his life in the general population of Tennessee's filthiest pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Not only will he get what he deserves, but it's a sentence that when handed down is actually carried out swiftly and certainly, and thus really does have a deterrent effect.
Not very charitable or forgiving of me, I know. It's probably not what Jesus would do. It's just how I feel.
In any death penalty case, one thing can be said with absolute certainty: The accused is either guilty or innocent. If he (almost always he) is innocent, then a guilty verdict is the worst miscarriage of justice possible, because the court has decided to execute someone for a crime he did not commit. This situation must be avoided at all costs. If the accused is innocent and acquitted, then justice has been served. If the accused is guilty and he is acquitted, a miscarriage of justice has also occurred, but one not as tragic as the above.
That leaves only the case of the accused being guilty and being convicted. Jim D. Adkisson is a suspect in a crime committed in front of 200 witnesses, having left a note beforehand stating his intention and hate- and bigotry-driven motives. I believe his guilt and his eventual conviction are certain. And I believe he should not be executed.
Is this some oh-that-poor-tormented-soul case of turning the other cheek? Hardly. Put simply, hanging is too good for him. Let him spend the rest of his life in the general population of Tennessee's filthiest pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Not only will he get what he deserves, but it's a sentence that when handed down is actually carried out swiftly and certainly, and thus really does have a deterrent effect.
Not very charitable or forgiving of me, I know. It's probably not what Jesus would do. It's just how I feel.