Just an opinion

        In response to a FB discussion re: the Orange County Fl State's Attorney's refusal to seek the death penalty in a controversial deputy murder by a man who had already killed his girlfriend and daughter. In the meantime, the state legislature has bent over backward to pass a couple of death penalty laws since the USSC shot down the first one which was basically, "fuck it, kill him."

        The second iteration, rapidly passed, was rapidly rejected by the Florida state Supremes who thought "we're pretty sure" still wasn't good enough, so to preserve Rick Scott's status as the all time leading Florida Governor in the death warrant derby, they pushed through a law requiring that 12 of 12 jurors must agree prior to a death penalty verdict.   

        Ok, I've waited a bit since I first read this to weigh in, but there are several things which come to mind . First, who ever said the death penalty was about deterrence? Do we really think anyone who has made the decision to take another's life has that issue at the top of their list of yes/no? Did Jeffrey Daumer eat those guys because he knew he'd only get jail time? Do we think Omar Mateen seriously considered the issue?

        Secondarily, for too many death penalty supporters, there seems to be this idea that we'll feel better about the death of our loved one if we execute their killer. Wanna bet? Closure is largely just a word those who are in the counseling business use to mollify those dealing with grief. If a child is lost, closure means finding out what happened. The disposition of the person responsible is unrelated to that sense of loss.

         Third, for many and especially the far right (you know, those who espouse that muscular Old Testament, "Jesus was a pussy," eye for an eye,  pseudo-Christianity?) the death penalty is about revenge. I get that, in the heat of the moment, many humans will feel that way; it's almost an automatic. But any sense that we'll feel better about the death of loved ones because their killer is killed is specious at best.

        Fourth, consider the following: As of March 2016, 340 people previously convicted of serious crimes in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing since 1989, 20 of whom had been sentenced to death. Almost all (99%) of the convictions proven to be false were of males, with minority groups also disproportionately represented (approximately 70%). The National Registry of Exonerations lists 1,579 convicted defendants who were exonerated through DNA and non-DNA evidence from January 1, 1989 through April 12, 2015. According to a study published in 2014, more than 4% of persons sentenced to death from 1973 to 2004 are probably innocent. Here is just one cases' summary: In 2014, Glenn Ford was exonerated in the murder of Isadore Newman. Ford, an African American, had been convicted by an all-white jury without any physical evidence linking him to the crime, and with testimony withheld. He served 30 years on death row in Angola Prison before his release.

        Having said all that, I agree  that in very narrowly defined instances, the death penalty is probably warranted. The case of Dylan Roof is one such. We're not talking about one tainted witness here, and regardless of the lunatic ravings of ex Marine white supremist wingnut, Richard Steele, this wasn't a false flag ploy to push for gun control. This was the uncontroverted case of a young man who sat in a Bible study group,  contemplated his actions and then began killing people. He made absolutely no attempt to deny these actions, which would have been a hard sell in any case since there were multiple surviving witnesses. Timothy McVeigh is another such self confessed calculating mass murderer. So is Markeith Loyd,  the shooter of Deputy Clayton in Orlando. None is of diminished mental capacity, and in none of these cases is there the slightest shred of doubt or is there any factor in mitigation. In fact, Roof's was the classic example of a hate crime.

        In cases such as these where there is absolutely zero chance that an innocent person might be executed, and as just a personal opinion, if an individual has demonstrated behavior that is so outside the bounds of the rules by which our society has agreed to live that they cannot be allowed to exist within that society, then execution is probably merciful. Not revenge, not for "closure," not for deterrence, but simply because by their voluntary actions and  beyond any conceivable doubt, the person in question has decided to unilaterally "void their warranty" as a member of the human race. A voluntary, considered  choice to  act in such an inhumane manner would seem to me be a self declared abrogation of all rights to consideration. Not interested in any response citing cost, etc, because it isn't about that. If a beloved dog becomes rabid, we put them down. Period. And before you give me any of that "But, people aren't dogs" bullshit, yeah, I know. I love my dog far more than several people I know. 

        Finally, while Ms. Ayala, the State's attorney in question, has the right to dislike the death penalty, there are other ways, and far better cases in which to express that opinion. Her job, as an elected official would seem to me to be to carry out the existing law in such a manner as the majority of her constituency believes it should be done. I really doubt that she is meeting that job requirement in this instance. In fact, I am reasonably sure she is not.