So, what’s happening  with crime and punishment in Washington State? Years ago, inept, Governor Jay “Woke” Inslee unilaterally suspended  the state’s death penalty. Who cares if Washingtonians didn’t get a say?
The Governor is the great and wonderful Wizard of Woke, which, ironically, if you dared to look behind the curtain, chances are you’d catch Gov. Woke, napping. Although, snoozing is probably the best thing he could do for the state.
The Seattle Supr—oh, sorry, Washington State Supreme Court, in what passes for wisdom, backed up Gov. Woke by quashing the death penalty  in a state ruling. “The death penalty is invalid because it is imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner.” Well, of course it is. What isn’t racially biased to the left, these days? And if there’s any doubt leftists dominate the state’s supreme court, it was a unanimous decision.
As in Virginia, the Democrats now, in addition to the Governor’s office and the Supreme Court, they now also control the state legislature. And they’ve been engaging in some of the same shenanigans as their counterparts in the commonwealth have been.
When the Dems are not trying to abolish Washingtonian’s right to self-defense, they’ve been busy abolishing the death penalty. But that’s not nearly extreme enough for them. They’ve also added a truly extremist item to the agenda: abolishing life in prison without parole .
And, as with all leftist endeavors, wanting to do it at the state level implies Democrats would like to see abolishing the death penalty and life in prison become the law of the land. I suppose, as far as the Dems are concerned, Justice Louis Brandies’ the states as laboratories of democracy  can be damned.
Doesn’t this radical legislation imply there isn’t a crime a person could commit where a murderer, even a mass murderer, won’t one day, if he or she doesn’t die in prison by some other means, be released back into the community?
Think about that. A person could blow up a federal building, killing hundreds of people in Oklahoma or fly planes into New York City skyscrapers, killing thousands, and, under this leftist theory, someday he or she could get out.
An argument death penalty opponents use is “It’s not applied equitably across rural, and urban, and other jurisdictions, and there’s a great deal of subjectivity and discretion in a policy that does not fit well.”
Wait. Couldn’t this reasoning be applied to abolish any state or local law? The fact one jurisdiction is more lenient or stricter than another is a fact of life in a society inhabited by human beings. Does this mean if in one city you can get a year in jail for a theft but in another you only get six months or even probation that the law should be Schiff-canned (sorry, couldn’t resist)?
Of course, death is the most extreme sentence society can impose, but the premise behind the “equity” argument is the same when judging the validity of any punishment. That’s why crime is lower in stricter jurisdictions than in lenient ones. Hey, Dems… Duh!
So, banning the death penalty is bad enough for all kinds of reasons. But they’re going a step further. Soft-on-crime Democrats now want to “end life in prison without parole.” No, really. SB 5819  would essentially ban the sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
If it becomes law, prisons could release people convicted of First-Degree Murder(s) after 20 years to kill again. A 20-year-old MS-13 gang member could hack someone to death with a machete and could be eligible for parole at 40. And not to leave older folks out of the leftist’s push for murder-equity, once a killer of any age hits 60-years-old, he or she could also be considered for release.
How much more can the left do? What will they come up with next? How much more can our republic take? How many more times can we say, how much more can the left do, what will they come up with next, and how much more can we take? How… well, you see where I’m going with this. The leftist’s radical, leftist revolutionary agenda is coming at a blistering pace.
Washington State’s death penalty opponents also argue the sentence is applied unfairly because a mass murderer could “bargain his way out of a death sentence” for killing several people, while the person who kills one person whose body is recovered gets sentenced to death.
Hey, people! Let’s remember we’re talking about murderers. The most violent felons society has to offer. Do we really want to have a standard where we don’t regard the unique facets of the various cases according to the distinctive facts of each?
This sounds like an extension of the left’s socialist call for equal outcomes over equal opportunities. But, regardless of where you stand, left or right, for whatever reason, on the death penalty, at least there was an alternative that existed to protect the public from these monsters until they died. Now what?
Without the threat of the death penalty, in the case of a serial killer, what would you bargain with to get him or her to confess where they’d left bodies? Prosecutors offered multiple sentences of life in prison without parole if he’d reveal the location of victims so the families could find some closure.
They did this with Washington State’s Gary Ridgway  (the Green River Killer)? Without the threat of even life in prison, where is the leverage to assist victim’s families in such extreme cases?