Some crimes, like first-degree murder, absolutely justify execution by electric chair
What’s humane?
I just read John Blume’s OpEd opposing the return of the electric chair. I couldn’t believe his defense of murderers who object to being electrocuted because there’s no “more humane way” of executing them. Is there a humane way to murder someone? Did they offer their victims a choice of how to be murdered? These murderers have survived for years while working their way through the legal appeals process. While waiting, they’ve been humanely fed, clothed, furnished medical and spiritual care, and given exercise, entertainment and amusement opportunities. Meanwhile, the survivors of the victims have not only suffered loss, but the knowledge that the murderers haven’t been punished as a court ordered.
Execution isn’t intended to be a deterrent. It’s meant to be a punishment. Sometimes a crime is so brutal that it absolutely justifies execution. First-degree murder is such a crime. The murderer displayed no compassion when he killed his victim; why does he deserve compassion when it’s time for him to die? If true justice were to be done, the murderer would die in the same manner his victim died. I fully support the use of the electric chair.
Jessie Sargent, West Columbia
No executions
I would like to take John Blume’s Opinion piece, “There’s no reason for S.C. to execute inmates in the electric chair or by firing squad”, a step further. There’s no reason to execute anyone by any means in the state of South Carolina. The death penalty and public execution is a horrible stain on the face of humanity. It does not right a wrong, balance the scales of justice, nor bring healing to the grieving and the bereaved.
On so many levels, it represents complete hopelessness in the values that we should all hold dear. Mercy, redemption, forgiveness, and the worth of a human being. The argument that mercy was not shown to the victims of crime can be applied to any crime. Do we only weigh the scales of justice heavily in murder and not in other life-altering and traumatic crimes?
It’s all inhumane. Putting a human being to death to right a wrong is barbaric. We either stand against the death penalty, or we don’t. In some things in life, there is no gray area. And this is one.
Jackie Morfesis, Charleston
Federal funding
Everyone knows this has been a challenging year for our state and its residents. Jobs are evaporating, people are being forced to relocate and abandon dreams, and schools are struggling, with funding for important areas like the arts drying up as government dollars get reallocated to fighting the pandemic. In the midst of all of this, we’re now seeing the Attorney General’s office request federal funding from Congress to expand a lawsuit that’s already being fought at the federal level — a duplicate request for funding.
Why the waste? And from an apparently fiscally conservative officer in an apparently fiscally conservative state? Alan Wilson wants to fight technology at precisely the time that tech is allowing small businesses to expand and, whatever the merits of that fight might be, it’s already happening at a federal level.
If S.C. is going to get more funds from the federal government, let’s not use it to fight battles that are already being fought. Let’s expand small business access to emergency funds, or bring arts and other important educational opportunities back to our schools.
Andrew Mullen, West Columbia
Drunk driving
Your “From bears to abortion to COVID: Which new laws passed, which didn’t” article recapping the 2021 legislative session was a bitter pill to swallow for drunk driving reform advocates. Fewer slow drivers in the left lane? Fine. But if there was time to address that, surely the Legislature could have found the time to pass Senate Bill 28 that expands the use of ignition interlock devices to prevent repeat drunk driving offenses.
As bill sponsor Senator Brad Hutto said at the Mothers Against Drunk Driving press event in April, many bills are filed but few save lives. S.28 will save many innocent lives, every year. The Senate passed it 41-1, and we expect a similar percentage of House members will vote for it when leadership finally gets the bill on an agenda. The House has been the slow driver in the left lane on preventing drunk driving tragedies that could happen to my family or yours. It’s time to let this bill pass.
Steven Burritt, Irmo