|
This was the inevitable result of a cowardly act by our liberal legislature. A few years ago, they were debating whether or not the death penalty should be abolished. To no one's surprise, the liberals were opposed (I am also opposed to the death penalty). But then the Cheshire murders happened. Now, if the politicians had any honesty or courage, they would have said "the death penalty is wrong, even in this case." Because if you are anti death penalty, what that means is, you are opposed to it 100% of the time. But they didn't have the courage to say that out loud (because everyne was calling for these 2 to be executed), so they did the unthinkable - they passed a law abolishing all future executions, but left in place the scheduled executions for those currently on death row, including the Cheshire murderers. Now I ask, what sense does that make? If it's OK to execute the Chesire murderers today, by what logic is it immoral to execute someone next year for doing the same exact thing, or even worse? The legislators knew exactly what was going to happen, that the court would say you cannot say that it's OK to execute one person, but not another person, based on the date of their trial. This is the exact outcome the liberals wanted, so they could dishonestly say "hey, the law we passed would have executed the Cheshire murderers, but the courts overturned it, so it's not my fault". Bastards.
|