The following is the reason Republican Senator Greg Lavelle gave for voting against the repeal of the death penalty:
“15 years from now, there will be a group, undoubtedly, that will come and say, ‘Isn’t it cruel and unusual, isn’t it horrific, that as as society that we put somebody in jail that committed a murder when they’re 21, 22-years-old, an adult, and they’re in there for 30, 40, 50 years, isn’t that cruel and unusual, and shouldn’t we allow them out?'” asks Lavelle.
This is quite an assine statement, even from Lavelle. First, no one here in Delaware or anywhere as far as I can tell has ever said life sentences for adults who commit murder is cruel and unusual. So Lavelle is lying to create a straw man that he can fight against, which gives him a reason for his vote. So let’s concede that point for the moment. Let’s concede that Lavelle is really concerned that there is this movement out there that in 15 years will seek to repeal life sentences without the possibility of parole because somehow it is cruel and unusual. Ok.
So Lavelle’s answer to this concern is we must kill the convict? In order to prevent the the forces waving the cruel and unusual punishment banner from going down a slippery slope, we must keep a cruel and unusual punishment on the books? It seems to me that Lavelle, through his attempt at mockery, is conceding that the death penalty is cruel and unusual and we need to keep that cruel and unusual punishment on the books so that non-cruel and unusual punishments like life imprisonment are never challenged as cruel and unusual. Well, that makes sense!
Lavelle would have been better off saying he wholeheartedly endorses the death penalty and believes in the principle of an eye for an eye. That is an understandable position. A position I detest, but at least it is understandable.