I don't have a problem with murderers sentenced to death as long as the evidence against them is beyond a reasonable doubt and a murder was involved. I do, however, wonder why some states are unwilling to support the death penalty in those circumstances.
Boston.com posted an article today saying that the killing of Kimberly Cates in her isolated home in Mont Vernon and the violent attack on her daughter did not meet the criteria set in the state of New Hampshire for the death penalty. The state is obviously required to follow the law as it sentences the four youths charged in this murder, but I question the message these criteria send to our society.
According to New Hampshire law, in order to warrant the death penalty a murder must meet six conditions including a paid assassination, a killing that involves kidnapping, and a homicide that entails sexual assault. Since none of these conditions were met, the death penalty does not apply. Wow. These four teenages are accused of planning to rob Kimberly Cates and then murdering her and attacking her young daughter in the process. Is the message we are sending here that killing this woman was not a crime worthy of the death penalty? Does Kimberly Cates' life have value?
Obviously every state has the right to its own laws, but it seems to me that killing someone is murder (particularly when it is part of another crime being committed) and deserves the death penalty. To say otherwise is to say that the life of the criminal is worth more than the life of the victim.
Boston.com posted an article today saying that the killing of Kimberly Cates in her isolated home in Mont Vernon and the violent attack on her daughter did not meet the criteria set in the state of New Hampshire for the death penalty. The state is obviously required to follow the law as it sentences the four youths charged in this murder, but I question the message these criteria send to our society.
According to New Hampshire law, in order to warrant the death penalty a murder must meet six conditions including a paid assassination, a killing that involves kidnapping, and a homicide that entails sexual assault. Since none of these conditions were met, the death penalty does not apply. Wow. These four teenages are accused of planning to rob Kimberly Cates and then murdering her and attacking her young daughter in the process. Is the message we are sending here that killing this woman was not a crime worthy of the death penalty? Does Kimberly Cates' life have value?
Obviously every state has the right to its own laws, but it seems to me that killing someone is murder (particularly when it is part of another crime being committed) and deserves the death penalty. To say otherwise is to say that the life of the criminal is worth more than the life of the victim.
Leave a comment