Opponents of the death penalty made the most of Clayton Lockett’s prolonged death, but it wasn’t the state that made his death slow and painful. The liberal activists who rushed out to claim that Lockett’s death proved that the death penalty was a cruel punishment had deliberately made it that way.
Oklahoma was forced to use a new and untried drug cocktail to put down the brutal murderer and rapist because death penalty opponents had cut off the supply of reliable pharmaceuticals. Due to pressure by domestic activists and the European Union on pharmaceutical companies, states have been forced to secretly assemble drug cocktails of medications without the knowledge of their manufacturers. Each lawsuit filed by the pro-criminal lobby risks revealing the means by which a medication was obtained and shutting down its supply channel.
Executions in the United States are rare and a tiny part of the market for pharmaceutical companies who would rather please liberal regulators and the medical establishment. While prison systems work to ease the suffering of condemned prisoners, the death penalty activists who claim to care about them labor night and day to make their executions as painful as possible.
There is a method to their cruelty.
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection did not represent cruel and unusual punishment. The question hinged in part on the risk of pain through the procedure. In 2010, the American Board of Anesthesiologists warned it would decertify any anesthesiologist participating in the death penalty. Then the supply of sodium thiopental, the medication mentioned in the ruling, was cut off.
The goal was to raise the “substantial risk” of serious pain in lethal injections and move the Supreme Court toward outlawing or suspending the death penalty. The worse an execution went, the more likely it was that future executions would be stopped based on the risk of it happening again. By making lethal injection as messy as possible, the pro-criminal lobby was torturing killers now to save future killers.
Lockett’s execution showcased the left’s warped morality and brought its goal closer.
European countries continue to use sodium thiopental, whose export to the United States they refuse to allow because of the death penalty, to kill their own people.
Belgium, which uses sodium thiopental for euthanasia, voted to euthanize children. The Netherlands, which employs sodium thiopental for the same purpose, permits killing children over the age of twelve. The last “minor” executed in the US was a man in his thirties who at the age of seventeen had set a couple on fire after locking them in the trunk of their own car.
In the UK, which was the first to cut off the supply of sodium thiopental, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists proposed “active euthanasia” for disabled children because, “A very disabled child can mean a disabled family.”
European countries condemn the cruelty of lethal injection for murderers, but use the same method to kill their children. Despite their posturing over the death penalty they are not our moral superiors. Like their Third Reich counterparts who also murdered sick and disabled children, they are on the same moral level as the murderers we execute.
It’s no wonder they oppose the death penalty.
Driven by that same foul mix of self-righteousness and sadism, death penalty opponents want to make executions appear as grotesque as possible so that voters, politicians, judges and juries will be more reluctant to follow through when the electric chair replaces the needle.
But they don’t intend to stop there.
While some opponents of the death penalty act on religious grounds, most are pro-criminal advocates. Their agenda is to damage the justice system as much as possible through lawfare that exploits its weak points. They believe that the criminal justice system is a capitalist tool for protecting private property and oppressing minorities. Their lawfare seeks to overload the criminal justice system and make every phase of it as expensive and burdensome as possible so as to discourage and limit its use.
Outlawing the death penalty is only one step in their campaign to free as many criminals as possible.
After California’s death penalty was shut down by a Clinton judge, more Federal judges stepped in ordering California to release 46,000 prisoners after ruling that prison overcrowding was, like the death penalty, cruel and unusual punishment.
Supreme Court Justice Alito warned that “the majority is gambling with the safety of the people of California.”
A quarter of California prisoners are lifers and so the state has gone from tough sentencing laws supported by the voters to a judicial activism forcing it to free 1,400 lifers in the past three years.
81% of California lifers are murderers. 10% are attempted murderers. 6% are rapists.
After 2008, 3,000 lifers were freed; over 1,000 more than had been freed in three decades. Governor Jerry Brown has been responsible for the lowest rate of parole denials of all three previous governors.
The overcrowding ruling was a means of extracting murderers from prison, just as the death penalty ruling was a means of keeping them alive. The endgame for the pro-criminal lobby, whether its members call themselves death penalty opponents or prison reform activists, is to free criminals.
California shows that for the pro-criminal lobby the next step after the death penalty is revolving door prisons for murderers and rapists. Obama has been doing his part to help free drug dealers and crackheads through what his attorney general, euphemistically, calls sentencing reform, but at the state level this is a war fought by leftist lawyers and radical foundations against the families of their victims.
Violent crime rates in the US have dropped sharply because increased prison sentences took career criminals off the street. Average time served for violent criminals increased by 37%. The $10 billion cost criticized by the pro-criminal lobby was modest compared to the savings in human lives and budgets when the murder rate was nearly cut in half.
There were 20,000 fewer rapes, 300,000 fewer aggravated assaults and 270,000 fewer robberies.
These successes gave the public a false sense of security leading to decreased support for the death penalty and increased support for pro-criminal leniencies. Like a patient who wants to stop taking antibiotics because he feels better, some forgot that crime hadn’t been solved; only locked behind bars.
Once crime rates rebound under the impact of the pro-criminal “reforms”, the backlash will lead to a return to harsh penalties. Meanwhile tens of thousands will suffer until the effects kick in on a large enough scale to destroy any public support for the pro-criminal lobby and its killer clients. And then the only legacy of their efforts will be the corpses stacked in morgues and rape victims in hospitals.
Victims of their cruel war against life sentences and the death penalty.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Read more here: Original Post Here http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/torturing-murderers-to-death-for-the-greater-good/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=torturing-murderers-to-death-for-the-greater-good by Daniel Greenfield Originally posted on http://freedomcenterstudents.org