Alan Colmes' wonderful site called Liberaland, ran this story. Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley said in an interview that he plans to invest heavy political capital to persuade the General Assembly to pass a repeal bill.
O’Malley said the death penalty is not a deterrent, wastes resources that could be better spent fighting violent crime and leaves the state open to the possibility of executing innocent people. “That risk alone should be enough to repeal it and substitute it with life without parole,” he said.
The quote comes from the Washington Post, but rather than linking to that source, I linked to Alan's site because the comments are as great. As usual both extremes of opinion are expressed. Why do the hard-line conservative opinions seem so ridiculous? Is it just because I disagree, or is it more? For example, you have the phrase, "then your ass gets cooked in the chair." But that commenter qualified it by saying only if 100% guilt is established.
The comment thread on the Colmes' site degenerated, or should I say ascended, into a pretty healthy debate on abortion. The old, "how can liberals be for abortion and against the death penalty?" was asked. The ones who ask that are usually guilty of exactly the opposite belief system: against abortion but for capital punishment. Guess which group I align with.
Above all, in the governor's comments I noticed a terrible lacuna. He mentions the non-deterrent factor, and the waste of resources. He talks of the probability of executing an innocent person. But no mention is made of the moral question of whether it's right or wrong. For me that's the major reason for abolition.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.