Last Friday morning, the reliably pro-criminal New York Times published its most recent puff piece about opposition to the death penalty. A few hours later, 129 (so far) unsuspecting and defenseless people were murdered in Paris in one of most ghastly terrorist attacks in memory. Hostages taken in a theater were shot dead in the face, one by one.
Kent has written that there is a principled position in opposition to the death penalty, and he, not I, speaks for CJLF. I used to think as Kent does about that; I no longer do.
The idea that there are no circumstances in which the death penalty should be imposed has entered the land of the preposterous. It can no longer be viewed as an error; in my view, it's a moral sickness.
It is almost universally agreed that the punishment should fit the crime. The notion that a prison term, no matter what its length, fits the Paris crime simply cannot be held in good faith, and neither is the idea that we cannot determine with certainty who the culprits are. Indeed, I suspect the French already know, as do we.
And make no mistake, this is coming to our cities, including, I strongly suspect, the one where my wife works and I teach law. It's just a matter of when.
Leave a comment