A New York Federal judge decided that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it's impossible to guarantee that an innnocent person won't be convicted. The New York Times opines that this is a good thing: The Death of Innocents.

I believe that the state has no business putting people to death. I am outraged that people are killed in my name ~ it is done in secrecy and an antiseptic atmosphere like that of a medical procedure (did you know that they swab the convict's arm with alchohol before putting in the needle? why? so he won't get an infection?).

The state has no business putting people to death. Protect me from criminals, by all means ~ lock 'em up and throw away the key if that's the only way we can prevent them from harming us. But the state should only kill in self-defence (justifiable warfare), and never when the threat has been definitively eliminated.

State-sponsored killing does not serve as a deterent. The only purpose that executions truly serve is revenge. And while I can easily empathize with the desire for revenge ~ it's an entirely human emotion ~ I don't think my government should be in the vengeance business. The civilized society doesn't seek revenge, it seeks to eliminate the need for revenge. A civilized society doesn't advocate an eye for an eye, but rather the golden rule. A civilized society recognizes that there's no honorable motive for murder.

So the Supreme Court says we shouldn't execute mentally handicapped persons, and one Judge Jed Rakoff says we're bound to violate someone's constitutional rights if we keep on executing people. If the only way to stop the death penalty is by increments here and there, well, I guess I should be glad for these first steps.

2:59:33 AM    please comment []