Ethical observations

The failure to execute sadistic killer Michael Morales points out an interesting ethical paradox. There are persons who oppose both capital punishment and abortion on deman with equal fervor. Their morality is seamless and is deserving of respect even if we fight to giving them their way. One may support both captal punishment and abortion on demand without showing any sign of hypocrisy.

But what about the split decisions? One can oppose abortion (the killing of innocents on a wholesale basis) yet approve of the most severe punishment of the most evil members of society on rational grounds. But how can one explain the mindset of those who think of a late term abortion of a secular sacrament but sing hymns and weep as a torturer of innocents or a serial killer gets the needle? This must be a progressive thing and an abiding faith in a party line that was once the hallmark of a surviving Stalinists.

As for those in the medical profession who avoid assistence in executions, note that one of the more recent intercontinental serial killers had ‘MD’ after his name. Dr. (‘Double O’) Swango killed dozens of patients (and made attempts on the lives of associates) but was protected by his fellow practitioners. Quite a few nurses attemted to raise alarms but they are not of sufficient rank to have credible opinions of their betters.

Perhaps the State of California should have searched the abortion clinics for an MD willing to help flush the toilet of justice.



    The doctors had been brought in by a federal judge after Morales’ attorneys argued that the three-part lethal injection process violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The attorneys said a prisoner could feel excruciating pain from the last two chemicals if he were not fully sedated.

    My question is does the punishment fit the crime? What’s a few seconds of pain for the piece of shit compared to the pain he caused to Terri Winchell?

    Morales was condemned in 1983 for killing 17-year-old Terri Winchell, who was attacked with a hammer, stabbed and left to die half-naked in a vineyard.

    Why not just hammer the son-of-bitch to death. Justice done!

  2. Commenter Hunter from Big Lizards:

    So pharmacists of conscience who decline to fill RU484 pills get fired and their licenses pulled, but a physician (who undoubtedly supports euthanasia) gets to pass on injecting a filthy murdering piece of human offal to lawfully put him down?
    Then change the law and allow anyone to apply the injection.
    This country is is becoming alien to common sense and decency in so many ways.
    Either kill the disgusitng murderer, or end the death penatly altogether. But of course that would require going against in most states what the people actually want.
    Isn’t it funny how in this country time and time again the will of the people cannot be allowed to stand in front of lefties who want it their way?
    We are no longer a nation of laws, but increasingly are ruled by a minority who seldom shares the values of the majority.

    The above hissed in response by: hunter at February 22, 2006 04:36 AM

    I happen to agree with Hunter 100%

  3. I would suggest hanging — public hanging.

    I am unalterably opposed to capital punishment, but it seems to me that if we are going to have it, we ought to have it in a way where all of society can see what their decisions have wrought. Build the gallows in the public square, and drop ’em where all can see.

    By going to lethal injection, we have sanitized the process; we’re putting them to sleep peacefully, like an unwanted puppy, because too many in society don’t want to realize just what they are doing.

    And those who believe that capital punishment has some sort of deterrent effect should support this as well. How can a little needle, behind closed doors, have the same deterrent effect as seeing some guy, maybe defiant, maybe crying, maybe pleading, falling through the trap door, breaking his neck and shitting his pants as he dies?

    Heck, we could even do it like in the old Western movies: a rope from a tree limb, kick the horse out from under him, and let him swing and strangle and take ten minutes to die.

  4. “But how can one explain the mindset of those who think of a late term abortion of a secular sacrament but sing hymns and weep as a torturer of innocents or a serial killer gets the needle?”

    I don’t agree with this view, but apparently such a person believes that a fetus at that stage is not fully a person yet and therefore it is not really murder. At the same time, they don’t have as much faith in the legal system as many on the right do, so what they really fear is executing an innocent person.

  5. A proper hanging involves a drop that breaks the neck and does not rely on strangulation. It was the traditional means of executing a common felon and was considered especially ignominious. It thus seems appropriate for quite of the few folks on death row.

    The elite were often executed by decapitation and this was considered more honorable and the delinquent could be given a proper funeral and burial. A firing squad was also considered more honorable than hanging.

    Those who lost their heads on the block were buried with it, often with it placed between their legs.

    One domestic execution gone awry was that of bumbling desperado Black Jack Ketcham. He was kicked out of his gang for stupidity and viciousness and lost an arm in a failed train robbery. He put on a lot of weight and the hangman did not take the weight and physical imbalance into account and Jack had his head pulled off. The bystanders were a bit disturbed and a kindly local physician re-attached the noggin before burial.

    The hangings of the top Nazi war criminals went poorly (for them) in spite of the services of a highly experienced hangman. Their remains were cremated and the ashes were placed in urns that were taken to the edge of a flowing river. Soldiers then kicked the urns to pieces and prevented any gathering of ashes. A fittin end to evildoers.

  6. An ignored element in the crime?

    Morales’ crime was more than torture and murder, it was also a homosexual hate crime. Terri Winchell was not some convenient victim selected at random. No, Terri Winchell was not just another young pretty girl caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Terri was marked for murder because she was romantically involved with a young man, the bisexual lover of Rick Ortega, Morales cousin.

    Ortega, fearing he would lose his homosexual lover, persuaded Morales to kill Terri so she wouldn’t be a threat to Ortega’s homosexual relationship.

    Morales is a viscous murderer, but he is only one element in the crime, Ortega initiated the crime, without his involvement Morales wouldn’t have had any reason to attack Terri Winchell. Rick Ortega is every bit as guilty as Morales, and should be held just as accountable, and both should have been executed long ago.

Comments are closed.