Inconsistencies at the DOJ? Say It Ain't So!

electricchair
Originally uploaded by dangunderman.

I'm against the death penalty for a lot of reasons (except, perhaps, in cases of massive corporate fraud, but that's a discussion for another time). Proponents of state-sanctioned murder seem to like to ask the question, "How would you feel if [enter loved one here] was brutally murdered?" A fair question, I suppose, if stupidly hypothetical. Naturally, I would want the murderer dead, and I would want to do it myself, and I would want to do it as cruelly and unusually as possible, which is probably why I wouldn't be the best person to make that decision.

Are two cases enough to establish a pattern? Because I think the Department of Justice may have a double-standard at work. Shocking, I know.

Vermont abolished the dealth penalty in 1987. But the feds took over a case that came to an end this past week, because the murderer took his victim over state lines. Prosecutors even brokered a deal for life-in-prison-without-parole, before John Ashcroft rejected the deal and told them to go for death. A Vermont jury then sentenced him to die.

Meanwhile, homegrown terrorist Eric Rudolph, who has proudly confessed to bombing two abortion clinics, a gay bar, and the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, has gotten himself a life-without-parole sentence. The Department of Justice is strangely quiet about this one. Is it because Ashcroft (and later Gonzalez) stands firmly against abortion, gays, and worldwide athletic competition? I don't understand the discrepancy.

Hell, man, I say, if you believe in the death penalty, then go whole-fuckin'-hog. Kill 'em all. Donald Fell (in Vermont), Rudolph, Bernard Ebbers, the Rosenbergs, Boba Rove, the jackass that next steals my wallet, all those Catholic priests, Lynndie England, Saddam Hussein, my high school friend that got caught with the 150-pounds of weed in his trunk, wife-beaters, the BTK killer, Ken Lay, NYC jaywalkers... Why fuck around?