LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Execution OK, given the crime
1/27/2014I was not appalled by how Ohio executed Dennis McGuire, a convicted murderer and rapist (“Egregious execution,” editorial, Jan. 19). His attorney said he gasped for air and probably suffered, even though McGuire was executed with a drug combination that included a strong sedative.
I wonder whether his innocent, pregnant young victim was gasping for air when he brutally raped, sodomized, choked, and stabbed her and then slashed her throat.
The only thing I’m appalled about is that this crime happened in 1989, and it took the state of Ohio so long to get justice for the victim’s family and to execute this criminal.
He was able to live all those years at taxpayers’ expense. He was treated far more humanely than he ever treated his victim and her unborn child.
Another tragedy: The criminal’s family plans to file a lawsuit, and probably will win.
MARY ELLEN PRICE
Monclova Township
Murderer got what he deserved
Did McGuire’s children think it was a bed of roses when their father killed the woman who was carrying a child (“Family calls Ohio execution ‘torture’,” Jan. 18)? He got what he deserved.
ROBERT PRICE
Springfield Township
McGuire’s death part of karma
The horrific events of McGuire’s death are karma. Nothing more, nothing less.
MARY PRICE
Perrysburg
Don’t link Bible to death penalty
There is perhaps no more egregious example of injecting religion into the political process than use of the Bible in an attempt to justify the death penalty (“The Bible as a bludgeon in politics grows popular, but unwise,” op-ed column, Dec. 13).
Adherence to Judeo-Christian beliefs has become a barometer, rightly or wrongly, that many people use as the sole gauge to judge the worthiness of a political candidate. There is nothing wrong with including a religious viewpoint in the overall assessment of a candidate, but we can miss the mark by determining what’s best for the country based only on our understanding of Biblical history.
Justification for the death penalty often includes the Old Testament’s admonition of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If we want to get into a discussion about the issue, then we can’t ignore Jesus’ follow-up instruction to turn the other cheek.
We develop our beliefs based on our interpretations, and what we want to accept and what we choose to ignore. There is much more to consider than just a person’s religious leanings.
The Constitution’s separation of church and state provides a crucial purpose. And nowhere is there a religious test for political leaders.
DONALD CARR
Sylvania