Readers React: America is a violent country. It needs the death penalty

To the editor: It’s no surprise that the majority of California voters support the death penalty in this progressive state. (“Execution is inhumane, no matter what method states use,” March 16)

This country has more than 300 million guns in circulation and an incredibly high number of deaths as a result. As far as I’m concerned — and surely as millions of other Californians also think — it’s justified that we should have the ultimate penalty to counter the reality that we live in a violent country.

And why do we always hear the argument that some people on death row are innocent? Is there a clear answer that this is in fact true?

Finally, when will California start carrying out the death sentences for the nearly 750 prisoners awaiting execution? If terminally ill, law-abiding individuals seeking end-of-life solutions via prescribed drugs can fulfill their wishes, I’m sure California can come up with a similar solution on the death penalty.

David Novis, Santa Barbara

..

To the editor: The death penalty, loathsome as it is, must be considered legal under the U.S. Constitution, which incorporated English common law as it stood at the time it was ratified. Then, England considered execution a legitimate form of punishment.

What is wrong with the death penalty is the moral implication of randomly meting out the punishment. For example, compare the rate of executions in Texas to that in California.

Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who once accepted the legitimacy of the death penalty, said it best: “From this day forward, I will no longer tinker with the machinery of death.”

Erica Hahn, Monrovia

..

To the editor: In addition to all of the excellent reasons you cite to abolish the death penalty in the U.S., there is yet another reason that was not mentioned: the devastating effect of this sentence on the family members of the people involved.

Imagine living, usually for many years, with the possibility that your relative may eventually be executed. Sometimes even the families of the victims protest the death penalty.

Instead, why can’t we have a less bloodthirsty but very severe (and more immediate) punishment for convicted murderers? The possibility of life imprisonment with no hope of parole, with solitary confinement and no amenities such as television, might be more of a deterrent to murder than the death penalty.

Jan Kelley, Studio City

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook