One of the primary reasons that I am against the death penalty is that the death penalty all but begs for politicizing the enforcement of law. Michelle Malkin has been reporting on the glorification of American murderers in France. On the right, you find people campaigning for the death penalty. The William Andrews case is a good example. Andrews was the accomplice in a horrible murder, he left the room right before the murders. Andrews had a viable case that he was bullied by his friend Selby into committing the murders. Executing Andrews was a borderline decision.
The primary reason Andrews was executed was because the family of the victims spent years actively campaigning for the execution. I do feel for the family. I hope that the closure of the execution brought them some comfort.
Andrews was not local, and he was black. This meant that there was not a local political base to campaign for a stay of execution. Andrew was a horrible person who enabled a terrible crime spree. His case, however, was borderline. The combination of a pro-execution campaign with no balancing counter-execution campaign tipped the scales.
The reason I turned against the death penalty during this execution was the observation that political campaigns for or against a criminal determines the life or death of the prisoner.
The international glorification of murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal shows the opposite side of this coin. In the political campaign for staying the execution of this cop-killer, the left has turned Mumia Abu-Jamal into a cultural icon. He is a revolutionary hero who kills policemen for social justice.
Michelle Malkin is right to point out that this campaign to glorify Mumia Abu-Jamal is a prime example of the extent to which the left is willing to undermine society the grub for power; however, we are faced with the problem that the death penalty creates a venue for such political moves.
Despite the fact that the death penalty gives solace to the families of the victims, the high road is to take the issue off the table.
This situation, where every border line death penalty case turns into a political campaign, will always tear our society apart and simply results in unnecessary damage the families of the victims involved in crimes. In cases where the political campaign stays the execution, the victim's family is left wondering why their loved one was not important enough to receive justice. In the cases where the execution occurs, the families and supporters of the murderer will fall into the belief that they are unjustly persecuted. In too many cases, the death penalty seems to magnify the horror of the crime. Too often it results in glorifying the murderers.
Yes, the progressives of the world are a sickening lot. They advocate creating and destroying millions of innocent lives in laboratories for experimental purposes, then go ballistic at the idea of executing guilty people.
In such a politically charged environment, it is always best to take the high road. Taking execution off the tables is costly, but it saves our society the damage done for and against the execution of prisoners.