Death penalty endangers victims

To the editor:

David Limbaugh, who penned a column grousing about the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which disallowed the death penalty for non-fatal crimes, reminds me of nothing so much as of a fundamentalist imam handing out stonings and beheadings like popcorn. What is it with these rightists and the death penalty? The Supreme Court was not endorsing child rape in its decision. When the smoke clears, convicted violators of children will not be out among us. They will still be behind bars -- and treated pretty roughly by their fellow cons, who take a dim view of that sort of crime.

Is Limbaugh -- not to mention Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt and the Louisiana Legislature -- so committed to the idea that violation of children should be punished by death that he would accept the idea's very probable consequence, a situation in which there would no longer be any children who would survive the crime of rape? Because that is what he would get. The criminal, not wanting to die but having already incurred the death penalty by the mere crime of raping a child, would reason that he would have nothing to lose by eliminating his living victim/witness.

I think the Supreme Court was gently hinting to the Louisiana Legislature: "Idjits! Lamebrains! Is this really what you want to do?" Is the child's safety from rape more important to the Louisiana Legislature -- and to Limbaugh -- than the child's safety from murder?

DONN S. MILLER, Tamms, Ill.