Bars Or Needle

Trey Smith

This post is not aimed at those of us who oppose capital punishment on moral or ethical grounds. In our book, the death penalty is simply wrong and it doesn't really matter what crime or crimes a person has been convicted of. But there are many people out there who do not share the moral/ethical qualms that we do. The way you see it is that, if a person takes a life -- in certain circumstances -- then that person should be compelled to give up theirs.

Jared Lee Loughner -- the man who killed six and wounded 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in a parking lot in Tucson, AZ -- faced a judge to be sentenced on Thursday. It was a heinous crime, one that destroyed or severely altered countless lives. Despite Loughner's callous disregard for the well-being of others, he will not become a Death Row inmate; instead, he will spend the rest of his life in prison.

This case illustrates the capricious nature of capital punishment. There are scores of individuals on Death Row in many states who killed far less people than Loughner, but they have a date with a needle and he does not.

Just take a look at two different serial killers. Ted Bundy is believed to have raped and murdered 36 or more women during the 70s. He paid for his crimes in the Florida electric chair in 1989. Gary Ridgway -- convicted of 49 murders of women -- didn't face the death penalty at all. He is living out his life in a prison here in the State of Washington.

What accounts for these vast differences in punishment? The answers -- which I am not going to address here -- are myriad. But these different sentences do beg the question: How can one individual be sentenced to death for a crime when another individual -- one who commits an almost identical crime -- is not?

How is this fair?