What do you think of this idea. It's pretty harsh, and some might even say it's unconstitutional. But it would work.
It's pretty simple. If anyone commits a crime with a deadly weapon, they receive an automatic death penalty. This would require two reliable witnesses, DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, ballistics, or other irrefutable evidence.. If found guilty, you get two appeals. That's it. Sentence to be carried out immediately after the third appeal. If we had a law like this, the people who commit such crimes would all be dead.
Dear
RWNJ
Death penalty prosecution takes too long and costs millions more per case.
If people BELIEVE in paying for that, let taxpayers CHOOSE to fund it.
If people don't, then by religious freedom, let those taxpayers pay for life in prison with programs in rehab and restitution where they work to pay back victims
and society. See letter copied below on this issue involving religious beliefs.
Better to set up citizenship agreements
where people agree to 2 years in military service or law enforcement
or 4 years in health care or education; and agree to comply with all laws
and authority to live in a district with this policy or pay all costs incurred to taxpayers
and victims if they are convicted of a crime (which requires full compliance and disclosure)
or agree to DEPORTATION and trade places with sweatshop workers in Mexican prisons.
If we make it an even exchange where anyone applying for citizenship
has to take over the work owed by a criminal getting deported, then
we can pay taxpayers back for crimes and costs, reward citizenship
to people who work and obey laws, and deport anyone who refused to comply.
Death penalty alternative
Regarding "Jury sentences Bellaire cop killer to death" (Page B1, Wednesday), I believe the law should
include other alternatives besides either the death penalty or life in prison without parole,
which adds to the burden on taxpayers and security risks to prison personnel.
I applaud the prosecuting attorneys for meting out the most severe punishment to those such as Harlem Lewis III,
found guilty of deliberately killing a law officer; but I believe the government should offer the option of
revoking citizenship in place of imposing the death penalty. Not everyone agrees the state has authority to
terminate life, but since government grants citizenship, it should equally exercise full power to revoke it
and to deport individuals who refuse to comply with law enforcement, regardless of birthright.
Perhaps it's time the U.S. government started a prison exchange program with Mexico and other countries,
where convicts who commit premeditated crimes could face deportation.
Considering Lewis' young age at 23, he could still work for the rest of his life to pay restitution to society,
such as through a Mexican prison, losing his rights to live freely in the U.S. as a consequence for abusing
those freedoms and as a stronger deterrent against capital offenses.
Emily T. Nghiem
Houston
Thursday letters: Death penalty, immigration, marijuana
Copyright 2014: Houston Chronicle | July 30, 2014 | Updated: July 30, 2014 7:26pm
Very Special Thanks to the Editors:
The Houston Chronicle, July 30, 2014
Death is a spiritual issue
Regarding Dudley Sharp's article
on defense lawyers in death penalty
cases ("Facts don't support ABA's
death penalty action," Outlook, Feb.
15), I agree with his suggestion the
American Bar Association police its
own members and disbar attorneys
providing inadequate counsel.
However, I would take such
scrutiny one step further. Since life
and death are inherently spiritual
issues, the decision to terminate life
clearly becomes a religious matter.
Thus no execution [can] be en-
dorsed or carried out by the state
without violating constitutional law.
Public resources are better spent
on mediation training and lawful
alternatives to capital punishment,
instead of being wasted fighting
unconstitutional practices.
Emily T. Nghiem, Houston
Houston Chronicle (Viewpoints), February 20, 1997