A few folks have e-mailed me about my little discourse on the Death Penalty, explaining about "special circumstances" and how the Death Penalty is not applicable without them. Sorry I didn't make it clear that I understand about that. My point is that, in both the Blake and Simpson cases, the applicable prosecutors announced, "We have decided not to seek the Death Penalty" and, at least in Simpson's case, it was reportedly because they thought a jury would be reticent to send a handsome sports hero to his death. Apparently, they could have gone for the ultimate penalty but opted not to try. They did not come out and say, "We have determined that this crime does not qualify."
So my question stands: Certain folks are outraged when a judge or governor could fry someone and doesn't, even if it's for some silly reason like evidence that the person might not have received a fair trial. Why are they not outraged by anything — a law or a D.A.'s decision — that prevents a Simpson or Blake from facing execution at all? Does anyone buy the notion that what they did (or are alleged to have done) is less worthy of the Ultimate Penalty than, say, if one of those "special circumstances" applied? A drive-by shooting qualifies for the Death Penalty but hacking your ex-wife and a friend to pieces with a knife doesn't?
I am not convinced there should be a Death Penalty, if only because I think our Judicial System is enormously sloppy about making sure the right people face it. But if we're going to have one, shouldn't it be less arbitrary? And aren't the folks in favor of the Death Penalty misdirected to be focusing their wrath on judges and governors? Shouldn't they be protesting whatever laws or decisions prevent the Death Penalty from even being sought when a guy allegedly plots and carries out the murder of his wife?