Tired and hackneyed. Those are the words that best describe the arguments Maryland legislators opposed to the death penalty used at their press conference last Thursday. Del. Samuel I. Rosenberg, a Baltimore Democrat -- and my fellow alumnus from that prestigious high school known as Baltimore City College -- introduced a bill that will repeal Maryland's death penalty statute.

"It's not a deterrent," I heard Rosenberg say on a local television news station.

Not accurate. Capital punishment researcher (and capital punishment proponent) Dudley Sharp contends there exist several studies that show the death penalty is a deterrent. But let's assume for the moment that Rosenberg is correct. Let's take his argument -- one capital punishment opponents make often -- to its illogical conclusion.

The death penalty isn't supposed to be a deterrent. The death penalty is called "capital punishment" -- as opposed to the "murder deterrent" -- for a reason: It's meant to punish, not deter.

No sanction for criminal conduct is a deterrent. Bank robbers still rob banks, rapists still rape, drug dealers still deal drugs, muggers still mug and carjackers still carjack despite the draconian penalties imposed for these crimes.

If it's logical to abolish capital punishment because it's not a deterrent, then it's logical to abolish all penalties for criminal infractions because they don't deter either. We could adopt a you-live-in-this-nation-at-your-own-risk policy where crime victims are told their victimization is their own tough luck and they have to fend for themselves.

The death penalty is racially biased, Rosenberg contended. Capital punishment opponents dredge up this argument based not on the race of murderers, but of their victims. Only those who murder white victims, they contend, receive the death penalty.

But murderers get to death row only if they commit felony murder. FBI statistics have shown, for years, that the greatest percentage of felony murder victims are white. The greatest percentage of felony murder perpetrators are black. Don't expect any Democrat in the Maryland legislature to propose a taxpayer-funded study be made of that particular racial disparity.

Maryland legislators on their annual anti-death penalty crusade really need to dial up that 1-800-RENT-AN-ARGUMENT hotline, because they're fresh out of 'em. Every year, brimming with nobility, they launch their crusade to abolish the death penalty in Maryland. Every year since 2007, I've challenged them to answer one question.

And every year, they chump out.

How do corrections officer David McGuinn's killers get punished if they are convicted of murdering him in July of 2006?

McGuinn worked at the now-defunct Maryland House of Correction. He was doing cell checks when two inmates allegedly stabbed him to death. Both suspects -- Lamarr C. Harris and Lee Stephens -- were serving life terms with enough time added that they may as well have been serving life without parole. Another life sentence, if they are convicted of murdering McGuinn, is no real punishment. They would have gotten away with killing him.

Nearly five years later, neither man has had to worry. Neither has been to trial. There's been one delay after another. Justice has proven elusive for McGuinn's fiancee, his son and the rest of the slain officer's family.

Instead of dredging up crusty anti-death penalty arguments so old we can all but see the mold on them, legislators like Rosenberg should do their jobs and demand to know what the heck is going on in the McGuinn case. Forget justice for McGuinn and his family: With their stance on the death penalty, Rosenberg and his colleagues have ruled that out.

But aren't they curious to learn what the delay is in getting his accused assassins to trial?

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...#ixzz1DwKiYtLI