Reignition Of An Old Discussion
By Mike Bibb
The assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah a couple of weeks ago as reignited an old discussion — "Should the Death Penalty be allowed in some states?"
As in most things involving human interaction, there is always at least two sides of a story; the passionate and less passionate, conservative and liberal, factual and nonfactual, the yin and yang.
Continued debate over the necessity of the death penalty in certain criminal cases is no different.
Some say yes, while others are vehemently opposed.
For the record, I'm in favor of the option in specific instances.
Primarily, because I believe a person who is capable of committing such heinous crimes — such as premeditated murder — has given up his right to life when he knowingly and willfully takes the life of another.
This opinion is based upon the factual documentation that an individual who intentionally murders another, for whatever reason, has also voluntarily sacrificed his own life.
For the obvious reason a murdered individual's life cannot be replaced by any form of recompense, remorse or forgiveness.
The murdered person is still dead and is not coming back. As a result, the guilty assailant can sit in prison for the rest of his life and that won't change the fact he/she killed an innocent person.
A retort might be "Society should continue to maintain in prison the guilty individual because his execution would be uncivilized or unChristian?"
That's one argument, but then it can be reasoned "What is so civilized about sustaining the life of a convicted murderer? How is that going to benefit anyone?"
"It might not benefit anyone, but his execution would lower society's standards to the level of the criminal's" the counter-argument may insist.
Not hardly. One of the reasons we have a civilized society and government is to protect citizens from the likes of people who seek to do harm to us.
Murder is not robbing a Circle K, carjacking or fudging a company's books. These crimes can be penalized and repaid through incarceration and fines.
Murder in the First Degree can never be repaid — in any form or fashion. It is forever.
In the case of the killing of Charlie Kirk, the assassin intentionally planned the assault, spoke of it on social media, discussed it with his "transitioning" male lover, used a family hunting rifle, scripted various slogans upon the bullet's shell casings, traveled to the scene of the crime, climbed upon a building's roof, took aim at Mr. Kirk, squeezed off a round, jumped down from the roof, tossed the rifle into some bushes, got back into his car and drove several hundred miles to his home town where he was recognized and reported to the police.
This entire process took place over a 24-hour period, and even several days before. It wasn't a spur-of-the-moment occurrence. It was planned and executed over a lengthy period of time.
Additionally, the shooter — apparently — was no dummy. He excelled in high school and was offered college scholarships.
However, he became enamored with leftist propaganda to such an extent he decided those with opposing views needed to be eliminated.
As a result, he must have recognized he would have an opportunity to kill a prominent member of the conservative right when Mr. Kirk would be speaking at a Utah university open air event.
Which is exactly what he did.
Which is exactly why Utah is seeking the death penalty. The shooter's crime is beyond redemption.
At least, not in Utah at this time.
Amazingly, Charlie Kirk's wife announced during a ceremony in Phoenix, Arizona on Sept. 21, 2025, and televised worldwide, that she forgave the assassin.
The ultimate Christian thing to do.
Yet, she didn't mention a word about the possibility of the shooter being executed by lethal injection or firing squad.
Perhaps, a subconscious realization that absolute evil demands absolute punishment.
