Thinning the Herd Some thoughts on the death penalty... Now, I understand the arguments against its use. I mean, who wants the State to have power over life and death? And, I also realize that there may be some inconsistencies in its application. But... Here's the deal. Regardless of how liberal, thoughtful, wishful or reform- minded anybody is, there are, IN FACT, people that need to be weeded out of our society. Period. Naturally, the more gentile among us would say "lock 'em up for life." Or even, "give them treatment." Why? There are people that are, plain and simple, human predators. And their respect for human life is nil. Including their own, in many cases. So why keep 'em alive? Why should my tax dollars have to go to keeping some lunatic alive? Ah-ha! "Insanity," you say. Well, duh! I mean, isn't the premeditated slaughter of innocent human beings insane? Isn't dismembering bodies, molesting children and burying people in the yard crazy? Of course it is! That is what Darwin MEANT by thinning the herd. Get rid of the "bad seeds," so they don't continue to reproduce. The problem is, when making that argument, the typical response is something akin to "where does it end?" Efforts to expand the death penalty to include certain drug dealers, and lesser criminals is suspect. No doubt. People making a living, despite the fact that the method is illegal, should not be killed. But people who kill, for sport and entertainment, them we don't need. They are not temporarily insane. They are clearly, completely and totally insane. Crazy as loons. Mad as a hatter. Just plain nuts. To me, "temporary insanity" would be, say, meeting your wife's rapist, and choking him to death with your bare hands. That would be temporary, overcome with emotion, or a specific event, and reacting in a violent manner. Some, including myself, would call it justifiable homicide. Others would call it vigilanteism. Killing people for sport is not temporary insanity. It is downright anti- social. And isn't that the whole point - getting rid of these "menaces" to society? Why should we, in the process, pay 20-some thousand dollars a year to house and feed these lunatics? The John Wayne Gacys and Jeffrey Dahmers of the world. Dahmer, of course, got his own justice in prison, at the business end of a mop handle, and that sick, demented S.O.B. is no longer living on the public dole. I don't mean to be callous and cruel when I say this, but...KILL THEM. Thin the herd. Yeah, that's right. You want sympathy? Here's a suggestion...DON'T KILL OTHER PEOPLE! Is that too tough a standard? I mean, I know people can be aggravating, and I know, especially in heavy city traffic, there are times when kicking the crap out of somebody is quite appealing. But most of us can suppress that desire, and just rant at home while mixing a tall drink to calm the nerves. Again, I don't care for my government having the choice of life and death (especially since they can't even pave a road without screwing it up), but there ARE people that need to be weeded out. Charles Manson, for example. We, as taxpayers, are paying for his meals, his shelter, his life. There are people living on the street that deserve better treatment, but we don't provide them with the same creature comforts we give this maniacal killer with a swastika carved into his forehead. Thin the herd. Perhaps what would be best, instead of allowing the state to pull the lever, or inject the poison, would be letting the families of the victims exact justice, in whatever way they choose. Or kill the killers with the same methods they used against their victims (except for the burying in the yard part). Then, true justice is served. Families whose loved once were viciously murdered will no longer have to live with the prospect that the killer might some day be paroled. Or that their tax dollars are being spent to provide comfort to the lunatic that killed their son, daughter, husband or wife. And the attorney fees for their constant appeals. Either way....thin the herd.