The lowa Legislature has again taken up the debate over reinstating the death penalty. Though support for this sentence is strong in lowa (almost 70 percent approval), lawmakers have continually “voted their consciences,” defeating the various bills they have come into contact with. Fortunately, with the new Republican majority in the Legislature and increasingly conservative Democrats, this may change.

The death penalty in lowa was banned back in the ’60s. Since then, violent crime has increased significantly and these crimes have become all the more gruesome and sinister. Though the death penalty could serve as the ultimate form of punishment for these abominable acts, lawmakers like Bill Bernau of Ames and Ed Fallon of Des Moines continue to block the motions for these laws; and in the process place the rights of criminals once again over the rights of victims.

In 1992, Joseph White, Jr. walked into the Drake Diner in Des Moines and while robbing the store, brutally murdered two employees who were doing nothing more than following his commands. In 1994, Jerry Proctor kidnapped Patricia Howlett, raped her, strangled her, then burned her body in a north Des Moines softball complex. In 1996, Phyllis Davis, who was on her way home from work in downtown Des Moines, was caught in a gangland crossfire and shot dead in a busy intersection. Later that summer Karen Logsdon, owner of a small Des Moines business, was kidnapped by Anusone Soukarith and executed in Nebraska because he liked her Mitsubishi 3000 sports car.

The men who committed these murders do not belong on this earth any longer. They committed some of the most atrocious crimes in the history of this state. Why do they continue to inhale the same air we breathe?

The answer certainly won’t be found in our society. The citizens of this state overwhelmingly approve the reinstatement of the death penalty, since they realize that there are some crimes where life in prison is a slap on the wrist.

Liberals in this state are finding it increasingly difficult to keep fighting this law. With horrendous acts of violence being committed more and more often, the voters are growing impatient with left wing “crime prevention” ideas. They want justice, and in some instances life in prison will not suffice.

These liberals are definitely a dwindling minority. Proof of that fact is the laughable Amnesty International seminar given last Friday, where all of 50 people showed up. Speakers on this topic included “experts” Bernau and GSB Vice Presidential candidate Rob Ruminski. In these speeches there was no mention of innocent people being slaughtered, but only talk on how criminals have been unfairly treated.

They used as an example a man who killed a police officer who was beating his brother. Though the police officer may have overstepped his bounds, this gave no right for this man to kill the officer. What about the wife who now is a widow or the child who no longer has a father? What about their rights?

Our country has sacrificed the rights of victims for the rights of criminals for too long. It’s no different here in lowa. When ideas surface that criminals shouldn’t get free cable and should pay their ways through prison, the liberals whine about the rights of felons. Instead of actually punishing those who have committed wrongs against society, these people want our laws eased so they can live out their dreams of a morally loose, anarchistic society.

The hypocrisy the left wing spouts reaches epic proportions. Though they fight tooth and nail for the rights of a man who executes two innocent restaurant employees, they could care less about the abortion of a truly innocent fetus. Yes, that’s right. The same people adamantly against eliminating the truly guilty from this planet have no qualms about violently killing an unborn child. If that’s not the ultimate hypocrisy, then I don’t know what is.

The liberal intelligentsia loves using statistics about how the death penalty serves as a poor deterrent to crime. It also uses facts that show the death penalty to be more expensive than life in prison.

It doesn’t matter whether a potential violent criminal is deterred by the death penalty. That is not the purpose of the sentence. The purpose of death is to serve as PUNISHMENT. If death by lethal injection gives that potential criminal a moment of pause, then that is a benefit above and beyond its original intent.

The only reason the death penalty is more expensive than other forms of punishment is because convicts are allowed worthless and futile appeals ad infinitum. These appeals take years and thousands of dollars from state coffers. There are people on death row who have been there longer than I have been alive. If there would be a limit on appeals, say no more than two, you would see that a syringe of Potassium Chloride is a lot cheaper than allowing a convicted felon to live out the days of his life watching Ricki Lake.

There is also a popular argument that the death penalty is too imperfect; there is too big a chance an innocent person could be executed. That would indeed be a tragedy. Unfortunately though, there are a lot more violent criminals who go free on razor-thin technicalities or because of an irresponsible jury (ask the families of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman about that one). Let’s worry about the psychopaths roaming the streets before we concern ourselves with those already behind bars.

Whether the death penalty will be reinstated I do not know, but it does have a very good chance. I do know this however: If the death penalty is passed, it will give prosecutors the power to truly avenge the deaths of innocent people and give their families the justice they deserve.

Robert Zeis is a senior in finance from Des Moines.