In a recent edi­to­r­i­al, the Delaware News Journal con­clud­ed that the uncer­tain­ties and delays of the death penal­ty favor end­ing the sys­tem and replac­ing it with a sen­tence of life with­out parole. Such a sys­tem would bet­ter serve vic­tims and their fam­i­lies, and bring swifter justice:

The lat­est argu­ment over the death penal­ty cen­ters on a seem­ing­ly sim­ple ques­tion: Is the cur­rent method of exe­cu­tion cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ment under the U.S. Constitution?

The Supreme Court even­tu­al­ly will answer, but not set­tle the ques­tion. Yet the debate is affect­ing states, includ­ing Delaware.
…
No mat­ter how the argu­ment turns out, it is any­thing but sim­ple. What, after all, does cru­el and usu­al pun­ish­ment mean?
…

In the mean­time, the fam­i­lies and friends of vic­tims will suf­fer through every appeal and delay.

Society should end this sys­tem. Americans are too reluc­tant to elim­i­nate or stream­line appeals. For valid rea­sons, they are afraid of being hasty and killing an inno­cent man. On the hand, the long, cost­ly process robs the death penal­ty of any deterrent effect.

Put mur­der­ers away for life. Take away any chance of parole or release.

Such a pol­i­cy will nev­er replace the lost vic­tims or ful­ly com­fort their fam­i­lies. But it will keep them from hav­ing to relive mur­ders with every appeal. And it will give respect to the idea of swift and sure justice.

(Delaware News Journal, July 28, 2006). See Editorials and Life Without Parole.

Citation Guide