The Politics of Death

A Colorado politician has concluded that Coloradoans should compete with the State of Louisiana in finding new crimes for which to put its citizens to death. Colorado State Senator Steve Ward--apparently concerned that Colorado looks wimpy compared to Louisiana's vindictive example--has proposed the death penalty for those who are convicted of "brutally raping" a child who is 12 or younger.

Noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled the death penalty unconstitutional for rapists, but "left the window open" for offenders who brutally rape children, Ward said, "The goal is to put the issue in play in Colorado."

Mmm...at "play"?

At "play"?!

My problem with this sort of legislation is that it's difficult to argue that someone who brutally rapes a child under the age of 12 doesn't deserve the ulitmate penalty. Who could argue against imposing the death penalty for such reprehensible behavior without the fear of appearing to somehow approve of it? What politician would truly want to risk being labeled as--not just soft on crime--but soft on people who brutally rape children? I simply don't have faith that many elected officials, maybe even most elected officials, have the courage to take a public stand against a bill which would appear to redress a criminal act we can all agree is terrible and horrific.

Which is exactly what Ward is banking on. If he's successful in getting his bill passed, Ward will claim he's "tough on crime" and has made Colorado safer for children. If he's not successful, he can blame all those liberal democrats for coddling child rapists. Either way, he figures, he can't lose.

Nevermind the fact that Colorado already imposes the possiblity of a life sentence for all felony sex offenses. In other words, if Colorado law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and courts do their jobs right, anyone who sexually assaults a child ("brutally" or not) can already be kept off the streets for life. Nevermind the fact studies have repeatedly shown Ward's assertion that these are "crimes that show there's very little chance of rehabilitation" is not accurate. (For examples, see this study or this study.)

Apparently, "good public policy" means not having to worry you've got your facts right.

So why would Ward want to put people to death just because they're repugnant and disgusting? Here's where the plot thickens:

Ward said he is aware his bill could become a lightning rod. But he insists he is putting it forward because it's good policy and not because he is running this year to replace U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, also a Republican, in Congress.

Ahhh, I get it now. Ward's ambition is to get elected to the Big Time. What better way to get yourself voted to Congress--so you can hang out with lobbyists and rent a condo on Capitol Hill and make yourself feel really important--than to call for the death of some revolting, hateful criminals?

Who could possibly object?