comments
Letters to the Editor

Reader Input: A step toward peace for whom?

-A +A

 

Amanda Calzada’s figures regarding cost to taxpayers for death row inmates may be incorrect. The L.A. Times is not recognized for its astute financial accounting or unbiased reporting.

The way to reduce costs is to revise the system for housing criminals, limiting the number of appeals and placing a time limit for filing appeals. Instead of providing killers with private cells, cable TV and other perks, and decades to find loopholes in the law, place them with the general prison population to work until execution. They should not be rewarded with better conditions than prisoners convicted of lesser crimes.

Comparing murder rates in Great Britain and Australia with those here is like comparing apples with oranges. You must look at crimes per capita, and factors like population density, border issues, unemployment and diversity. Arizona and Mexico murder rates are higher because of the Mexican drug cartels and illegal aliens.

Her statement that eliminating a death sentence is “a step toward peace” makes one ask, peace for whom? Is it world peace, peace for the victims or just peace of mind for killers? Her opinion might not be shared by all family members of victims, and certainly not by the victims, if they could speak.

Capital punishment is not imposed to teach others anything; it is to help right a wrong. For some reason, many bleeding hearts believe executions are “cruel and unusual punishment,” yet believe killing a fetus is merely “freedom of choice.”

Murder victims suffer pain they do not deserve, and forcing killers to pay the ultimate price is why we should keep and enforce capital punishment.

Nancy Owen, Rocklin