Logic At The New York Times

L

Let’s see here:

The decision by a jury here to spare Lee Malvo’s life after finding him guilty in last year’s Washington-area sniper rampage may hasten a movement to abolish the death penalty for juvenile killers, legal experts say.

The movement had stalled, they say, because Mr. Malvo’s crimes, at age 17, were so troubling. Now, though, the jury’s decision to let him live may prompt reconsideration of whether executing juvenile offenders is ever proper.

So, because Malvo wasn’t given the death penalty, this may spur on a movement to not issue the death penalty. Huh?!

The fact is Malvo should be dragged into the town square so the survivors and victims’ families can tear him to pieces. But, because his defense attorney did a great job getting smarmy liberal soccer moms to dominate the jury, he didn’t die.

Why the heck does this need a movement? Just load the jury with smarmy soccer moms and only Marth Stewart will be given the death penalty.

I have never understood how a liberal can conclude that because something didn’t happen, a movement will be spurred on to ensure that the thing does not happen. Inertia appears to be working quite well without a movement thank you very much.

About the author

Erick Erickson
By Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson

Get in touch

You can check me out across the series of tubes known as the internet.