I offered my thoughts in comment 1, I was angry that someone would try and sway reader's that somehow it is bad that society has forgotten someone who had died in prison as compared to all the media attention the likes of Tookie received.
This guy really is off his rocker. I sent a letter to this paper, I doubt it will go anywhere as I am not a resident but it allowed me to vent.
The guy was given a trial, punished and he did exactly what he was supposed to do live out his remaining days behind bars. Why should we care as a society that he is no longer with us. The family of the victim should be notified, such notification must have been freeing.
If the convicted has family, they should remember, pay for the obit, if they feel he is worthy of paper send off.
But, to somehow say, shame on us, that this inmate/convict was forgotten upon his death?
SHAME on Mr. Rick Malwitz.
Oh and to add 9/11 to his argument, that was just well beneath the belt. imho
What I get out of this article... is a variation of the old 'Please don't throw me in that briar patch!' theme.
I suppose, if enough writers who are against the death penalty generally could successfully convince enough others (particularly those who are otherwise not similarly anti-death penalty) that life in prison is actually 'much worse' than the death penalty, then such writers might then make a second argument on the heels of the first... that the 'death penalty' is then 'no longer needed', so as to accomplish what they wanted in the FIRST place - to get rid of the death penalty.
I find the following, which I believe was posted earlier elsewhere on FR, to be a GREAT DEAL more pursuasive: ...that 'The death penalty is unique in its 'success rate' in that once the sentence has been carried out, those receiving it, will ALWAYS have a ZERO recidivism rate.