It Won’t Be Enough
These two are about to find out their fate.
In short, they entered a Near West Side deli one evening around Christmas, 2004, to rob the place. For some unexplained reason, they began shooting, killing two innocent people in the process.
One person who died was a friend of the store owner. He was shot because he didn’t open the cassh register fast enough.
The other was a 21-year-old girl, the mother of a newborn in search of a particular formula for her baby. Her husband had just dropped her off at the store and circled the block; when he came back around to pick her up, she lay dead.
Here one moment; gone the next.
The killers might end up with the death penalty; then again, they may not. Either way, they’re going to end up in prison.
A life sentence won’t be enough, and neither will the death penalty. I say this because we — as a society — have sanitized our penal sentences to make them more humane.
Instead of hanging, electrocuting or gassing our criminals these days (or the proverbial firing squad), we now strap them to a table and inject them with a lethal poison. It’s quick and painless, a civil, “pleasant” end to a violent criminal’s life.
Does anyone else see the incongruity in this?
These guys entered the store to rob it, then started shooting. Innocent lives were suddenly — and violently — taken from us with a savagery that few, if any, of us will ever experience.
Having experienced a loved one’s sudden death (and another’s long, drawn-out expiration), I can tell you that neither is pleasant, but a sudden death when there is absolutely no reason to expect it is cruel not only to the victim, but to the survivors, as well.
A spirit, an energy, a force within your life is inexplicably and forcefully removed from your life — without warning — and you’re left to deal with the consequences.
It leaves a hole in you that can be bigger than life itself.
And we choose a serene method of death for our criminals.
Now, I’m not going to argue the efficacy — or the propriety — of capital punishment here. It is what it is. It’s here, and I can’t change that. The death penalty doesn’t solve anything; “an eye for an eye” hardly provides solace for the stricken families or society.
But, then again, neither does life imprisonment.
I have come to the point where I think the courts may be somewhat out of touch with society as far as sentencing criminals is concerned. Punishments rarely, if ever, fit the crime.
The current method of carrying out the death penalty is a prime example: if we were to really do it right, shouldn’t they be kept unaware of their sentence, then summarily — and just as unexpectedly, terrifyingly and violently — execute them in a similar manner to what they used to kill their victims?
Think about this: the BTK killer will spend the rest of his life in prison. I’m OK with that, as the death penalty doesn’t apply to his crimes due to the state of the law at the time of the murders.
The problem with him is that he enjoys being treated badly, being deprived. Aren’t we serving him by imprisoning him for life? Any “punishment” we mete out for him will be a sentence of enjoyment.
I agree, he is a sick S.O.B., and he deserves a lot more than what we are giving him — but what? The same goes for Rembert and Williams: they took lives indiscriminately, terrifyingly and violently — and then lied about it on the stand.
While I consider myself a social liberal (I’m fiscally conservative, and therefore an Independent voter), this is one place where I agree with the death penalty, even though it solves little, including violent crime. One thing’s for certain, however: we’ll be better off as a society without them.
Rembert and Williams deserve what they will get.
The stricken families, on the other hand, don’t deserve what they got — heartwrenching loss.
(73.8 — 39.2 — 34.6)
