I hesitate before making any contribution to this debate, because the tenor of forgoing posts leads me to suspect that my views will not be popular, and I think that my views are also easily misunderstood. I believe that the death penalty is sometimes appropriate.

Firstly, is any punishment meted out by the powers that be just unless "beyond all doubt"? Is it OK for someone to be gaoled for 20 years if there is doubt that he is guilty? And was not this recently executed man found guilty by a legally constituted court, with a jury of his peers who knew the likely outcome of their "Guilty" verdict?

Secondly, I don't believe that executing someone who has been found guilty of murder by a legally constituted court is a case of two wrongs making a right. The initial murder was a wrong, but the execution of a murderer is (trembling, I say it) a good thing. Being human is being responsible for our wrong actions just as much as for our achievements, and being responsible involves being punished when we're found out. The punishment should fit the crime, however; I can think of no crime other than murder deserving of the death penalty.

Thirdly, I do not think that justice is served by keeping a man on Death Row for nineteen years. That, not his execution, is a cruel and unusual treatment.