Texas loves vengeance

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:19-21)

Many politicians in Texas profess their faith in Christ and call themselves "pro-life." Perhaps their reading of scripture is faulty. Jesus explicitly rejected the idea of an "eye for an eye" for His followers (Matthew 5:38-42). Perhaps their faith is not strong enough to overcome their lust for punishment and revenge. How else can one explain the state executing a mentally challenged man with an IQ of 61? It is even harder to call it justice when his accomplice was given life and there was no independent evidence that definitely established which of the two was responsible for murder.

His accomplice in the crime, Terry Lewis, was given life in prison with the possibility of parole, after Lewis's wife testified that Wilson confessed to pulling the trigger. No forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony established the identity of the shooter.

Texas needed to a life for life. And they had to work exceptionally hard for their vengeance in this case.

In 2002, the Supreme Court prohibited the execution of the mentally retarded, declaring it cruel and unusual punishment forbidden under the Constitution's 8th Amendment. Those with diminished mental capacity, the court ruled, are less culpable for their crimes than those with normal intellects. The reasoning was nearly identical to the legal argument the court embraced in forbidding the execution of juvenile offenders.

Yes, they exercised their rights to take a life of a man that sucked his thumb into his 20s and never held a job. It is interesting how so many people claim to interpret scripture literally and then do the exact opposite of the New Testament foundation of their faith.

It all boils down to consensus for capital punishment.

In 2004, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in a 21-page effort to establish guidelines for determining mental retardation in capital cases, alluded to Small as a character most Texans would be unlikely to execute. "But," the court reasoned, "does a consensus of Texas citizens agree that all persons who might legitimately qualify for assistance under the social services definition of mental retardation be exempt from an otherwise constitutional penalty?"

Just to be on the safe side, Texas used an expert that argues for adding a few points to intelligence scores to blacks to correct for "ethnic environment." Viola. That pesky 61 now exceeds the state cut-off for mental retardation with the ethnic correction.

Apparently, Christians in Texas are not troubled by the state's frequent use of capital punishment, including cases of intellectually limited or mentally ill offenders. The only opposition to this execution I could find in searching news sites in Texas was from human rights organizations.