To the editor: By opposing the death penalty in all circumstances, the L.A. Times Editorial Board is advocating that mass murderer Dylan Roof and others like him are awarded the privilege to die of old age. To that end, these killers will be housed, fed and cared for medically.
This is the antithesis of justice.
The majority of Californians, even as left-leaning as we are, favor selective application of the death penalty, as evidenced by the 2016 results of Propositions 62 and 66. Still, an ardent minority thwarts the will of most California voters.
Similarly, majorities of Republicans and even National Rifle Assn. members favor universal background checks for gun purchases, but an ardent minority thwarts this common-sense step. Perhaps compromises can be made regarding these issues.
Glenn Toth, Playa del Rey
To the editor: The editorial combining the horrific story of a tortured child who was killed with arguments against the morality of the death penalty missed a crucial, yet under-reported, reality: Many of the inmates sitting on death row were abused, neglected children themselves.
The link between early abuse and poor outcomes later in life has been well established, yet our criminal justice system has scant compassion for these traumatized individuals who often are “doomed from the womb.”
The Times stated many reasons that the death penalty is morally repugnant; let’s add the cruelty of executing people who were society’s throwaways from birth on.
Nina Stern McCullaugh, Sherman Oaks
To the editor: Your editorial opposing the death penalty equates what a murderer does to his or her victim with what the state does when it executes that killer.
Do you not see the difference between someone who kills an innocent person and the state that executes the murderer? It is not the same.
Jerry Freedman, Los Angeles