<< Fear of Simple Truths | Main | Is the Death Penalty Killing Education? >>

Why We Have the Death Penalty, Part II


Six weeks ago, I wrote a post titled, "Why We Have the Death Penalty."  The underlying story, passed on to me by commenter federalist, concerned an unimaginably cruel and sadistic murder of a mentally impaired, and therefore overly trusting, young woman named Jenny Daugherty.

Today I was browsing the news sites, as I sometimes do, and found the following story, which could be titled, "Why Britain Should Bring Back the Death Penalty and Will Soon Enough."

The story is about the murder of a young person.  I would say that it is horrible beyond belief, but unfortunately the capacity to believe that such things can and do happen is the price of growing up.

The story is not for the faint of heart.  I ask you to think twice before reading it.  For those with the stomach, it follows the break.


Fox News reports:

Toddler Ryan Lovell-Hancox suffered a brain hemorrhage brought on by blows to his head -- injuries experts said were similar to those suffered by a car accident victim.

A couple who inflicted more than 70 injuries on a three-year-old boy they babysat were found guilty of his murder Friday.

Toddler Ryan Lovell-Hancox suffered a brain hemorrhage brought on by up to 10 blows to his head when it hit a floor or wall. Experts said his injuries were similar to those suffered by a road accident victim.

The toddler was in the care of Kayley Boleyn, 19, and her boyfriend Christopher Taylor, 25, longtime friends of his mother, Amy Hancox. They offered to help her care for the boy in 2008.

On Dec. 22, 2008, Boleyn ran to a neighbor in Bilston, southern England, and asked him to call emergency services because Ryan slipped in the bath and hit his head.

When doctors saw the extent of Ryan's injuries, they knew they were not caused by a simple fall and they contacted police. Ryan died in the hospital of cardiac arrest a few days later, on Christmas Eve.

Wolverhampton Crown Court heard how the couple humiliated and degraded the child: He was made to lick spilled soup from the floor and shouted at so loudly that he wet himself. Police believe a friction burn to his nose was caused by his face being rubbed into his own urine on the carpet.

Beyond the obvious, four things struck me about this story. 

First, no abolitionist is going to voluntarily talk about it and will try to divert you if you try to talk about it.

Second, if nonetheless you can get it into the conversation, the abolitionist will make the obligatory statement of regret that such a "tragedy" (they're always a "tragedy," like an earthquake, never a crime) "occurred" (they always just "occur," like the tides, they don't reflect willful human action).  But it will become clear that his most authentic indignation is not directed at the killers  --  it's directed at you for bringing it up. 

Third and relatedly, the reason you're going to get the business end of the abolitionist's feelings is that the Excuse Factory will be working overtime for the killers (broken home, on drugs, bad education, etc.).  You, however, don't get any excuses.  This is because, while the killers are social victims to be "helped," you're a barbarian. 

Finally, and to return to the real world for just a moment, any sensate adult who thinks that a jail term for this crime constitutes justice has no comprehensible understanding of what "justice" means.


One of the death penalty cases in my jurisdiction involves the premeditated, execution-style killings of two pre-school aged children. It is indeed these kinds of cases that cry out for the ultimate penalty, because nothing else resembles fit punishment for such a crime.

notablogger --

Kudos to you for acting while I just talk (I used to act too, but that was before I went over the hill).

Cases like yours and the one I noted are just incomprehensible. How someone with a shadow of a human conscience can do such thing is beyond my understanding.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives