Much support for the death penalty
Re “Delving into death,” editorial Jan. 7
Unfortunately, the Ralph Baze case before the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of lethal injection is not about abolition of the death penalty, but pharmaceutically tinkering with it. This is a diversion from the essential point: There can be no criminal procedure that ensures against the execution of innocent individuals. Therefore, it should be abolished. Short of abolition, one of the near-term solutions is to elect district attorneys who will not seek this penalty.
Henry Organ
Menlo Park, Calif.
--
I don’t understand the problem with lethal injections. I’ve had two open heart surgeries, both under injected anesthetics in which I was instructed to start counting backward from 10 to 0 and never getting below 7 before being completely out. It would seem to this layman that just a little stronger mix and I never would have regained consciousness and not suffered any pain.
Bud Fink
Carpinteria
--
The Times’ citation of the view of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart concerning the death penalty, “these death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual,” does little to further its argument opposing the ultimate punishment. There is no inherent cruelty in a lightning strike nor in all of nature. Although the world of nature can seem capricious or unusual to us, it cannot be cruel, as it has no conscience.
Louis H. Nevell
Los Angeles
--
There is nothing moral in your editorial position regarding capital punishment. Your concerns that the condemned are at risk of pain, and that the ultimate penalty is “imposed so unevenly” that there is a “potential for miscarriages of justice,” are ludicrous and betray a facile, yet profoundly ignorant, understanding of justice in light of the crimes committed for which the death penalty is imposed. How is the value and sanctity of life made demonstrably paramount if those who exhibit the utmost disdain for those values are not deprived of, or put another way, are rewarded with, that which they so callously deny their innocent victims?
David Coles
Norwalk
--
Re “Justices seem unswayed by lethal injection foes,” Jan. 8
Thankfully, a number of Supreme Court justices seem on the right track regarding the use of lethal injections. The death penalty critics’ claim that the use of lethal injections to carry out executions amounts to cruel and unusual punishment is flawed. Notice how fast the killers repent and show remorse when it is time to pay for their cruel deeds? How about giving the killers three doors to select from: hanging, electrocution or lethal injection? I’ll bet the killers would select lethal injection almost every time.
Bernard Merkle
Thousand Oaks