Leibby Kletzky, RIP. Photo by Paul Martinka
New York needs the death penalty back for cases like the one we read about today involving a murdered and mutilated eight-year-old boy in Brooklyn. The animal who did this needs to disappear.
Innocent people tragically have been put to death because of faulty trials, which gives any death penalty advocate pause, but in a case like this one, it seems — at this point anyway — there is a little doubt who committed the outrage. The suspect had the little boy’s severed feet in his freezer and took police to the rest of the boy’s remains.
The U. S. military will dispatch dozens of enemy combatants today in Afghanistan. It will drop bombs on Libya and target insurgents in Iraq because they represent opposing political interests. The overwhelming majority of Americans have no problem with that conceptually. But the full weight of the civil libertarians will come to bear to stop the killing of a sadistic child murderer. I do not get it.
People who kidnap and murder children should not be allowed to walk the earth. Period.
If found guilty, the suspect will be lucky. There are very few Hasidim in prison. They would tear him limb from limb, and they would be right to do it.
Speaking on behalf of the anti-death penalty brigade: I don’t think you’d find many people who would argue against a death sentence for a man such as this (or, locally, for the Cheshire murderers). The problem is that the death penalty always has been and always will be unfairly applied and, as we all know, is also sometimes incorrectly applied. So, the question is: Is it fair to execute the innocent just so people like this murderer can be put to death? Or is it better to put these people behind bars for life to avoid the possibility of yet more innocent people being executed? There’s also the larger question, for some, of whether the state–any state–has the right to take away a life granted by God. My concerns lie more in a radically imperfect system all too often imperfectly applied.
Well said. I agree with all your points, except the conclusion. I think it can be more narrowly applied.
“Because they represent opposing political interests” may be a bit euphemistic…