Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader occasionally reads something that saddens and enrages him at the same time. But before he gets to that, allow him to backtrack for a moment.

Your Maximum Leader has, from time to time, expressed in this space that he might be in favor of getting rid of the death penalty if instead we agreed to remove individuals convicted (and appealed) of some particular heinous crimes to be released into society - but without the protection of the state.

This is to say that we are all living in a country that provides a degree of protection to citizens against being murdered. Specifically, the right to kill someone is reserved by the state (in most circumstances). So, if you are murdered, the state can (and ostensibly will) seek to find your killer, deprive them of their liberty and eventually their life. I have said in the past that the state shouldn’t be in the revenge business (ideally speaking). Your Maximum Leader has hypothesized that the state should allow those convicted of particularly heinous and disgusting crimes (murder for example) after their trial and appeals process is finished to be released back into society. But these released people are not subject to the protection of the state. Here is a hypothetical for you. Man murders young girl. Man is convicted. Man’s conviction is upheld on numerous appeals. Final appeals are exhausted. Man is shown to the prison gate and released. Murder victim’s father and brothers await outside the prison gate with baseball bats. Victim’s family beats man to death. Victim’s family walks away not to face any prosecution. Why? Because the man (the murderer) is not entitled to the protection of the state.

So let us move along now shall we?

So, this is the press article that enraged your Maximum Leader. Prosecutor: Slain toddler said “I love you” at end. The opening paragraphs of the piece:

A slain toddler tried to stop her mother and stepfather from beating her to death by reaching out to her mother and saying, “I love you,” a prosecutor told jurors Tuesday. The pleas from 2-year-old Riley Ann Sawyers didn’t stop her mother, Kimberly Trenor, from continuing to brutalize her, assistant district attorney Kayla Allen said in her opening statement at Trenor’s murder trial.

But defense attorney Tommy Stickler Jr. told the jury that Trenor, 20, never intended to kill her daughter in 2007 and that things just “spun out of control.”

Okay now… Your Maximum Leader read that piece and in this order 1) came close to crying; 2) was filled with rage; 3) was filled with rage and regret that the prosecutor decided not to go for the death penalty. All those emotions came upon your Maximum Leader in about 60 seconds.

Now… After some calmer reflection your Maximum Leader would like to know exactly how the prosecutor knows that the slain toddler said these things. (Your Maximum Leader suspects that the mother or stepfather confessed to it.) He certainly hopes that the prosecutor isn’t elaborating on this horrible story for the sake of a dramatic closing statement.

That bit of curiosity aside, your Maximum Leader would want the mother, if convicted and after exhausting appeals, to be released without the protection of the state. In that circumstance, he would consider driving to Texas with a gun, a cricket bat and a bad attitude.

Carry on.