A man has been executed in Texas for the murder of his wife’s brother and parents nearly 30 years after being sentenced.
Billie Wayne Coble is the oldest person to be executed in Texas since the death penalty was re-introduced in 1982.
But this is not about the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, this is more about asking the question as to whether, if the death penalty does not happen for 30 years,is doing so not then delivering two sentences instead of one?
I am thankful that I live in a country where the death penalty does not exist,even for the most unthinkable crimes. However I do recognise that in some instances there is definitely an argument for someone to be imprisoned for the rest of their life with no possibility of their release back into society,and I do recognise that in such instances justice is punitive rather than restorative.
However, in the case of individuals such as Billie Coble, he has served a 30 year sentence which essentially equates to life in prison, and only then has he been put to death.
While I understand that the death penalty is often delayed due to the appeals processes etc, I think it’s fair to say that 30 years is surely a stretch by a modern society’s standards, and that if after 30 years the individual is still incarcerated then it’s safe to assume that he has paid his debt to society and should rather be left to spend the rest of his life in prison rather than being put to death as some kind of last statement.
If a country has the death penalty, should that not mean that when someone is sentenced to death, they are then put to death, rather than serving a life sentence and then being put to death? In that instance the death penalty seems more like a statement than the carrying out of a sentence.
