It is worth considering what all the differences of opinion on matters like this mean. Obviously, there is no consensus on whether society is better served by the death penalty. It seems to me that it is a very social/cultural decision.

Once, the death penalty was common in many countries, and was meted out for a whole array of 'crimes'. In many places, it still is. There was a story today from Iraq about former Baath party members being systematically hunted down and executed by vigilantes...sometimes for direct crimes, sometimes for just supporting Saddam's regimé.

"We are an Eastern, tribal society with the principle of vengeance. Revenge will be exacted," said Maj. Abbas Abed Ali of the Baya police station in southwest Baghdad."

   So...is it "ok" because Iraq is such a society? What about Saudi Arabia? And does that mean that Texas can claim that their history and culture makes it different than some state like Oregon? How do we argue with Texans, most of whom who claim to be good "Christians", but support executions?

It has been argued that simple practicality is relevant. If it costs 'X' dollars to try and execute, with all the appeals, and 'Y' dollars to try and incarcerate for 30-40 years, why not set a formula? Perhaps a criminal who is deemed not likely to repeat his offense should be allowed to buy his freedom to save the taxpayers money?.....Sure can get complex, huh?

The only REAL argument I have seen here against capital punishment is that we 'might' make a mistake. This is a real issue with modern forensics and DNA techniques. Even states which support capital punishment are now having to real with the awkwardness of discovering they executed the wrong person.

If crime and prison populations keep rising, I suspect that societal attitudes WILL change to cope with the problem of continuously building more prisons and spending money on the criminals that could go to help their victims or their families. Does this seem capricious to those of you who oppose murder of ANY kind?......well, what about crime prevention? What if you had heard those 19 young Muslims planning to hijack those 4 planes and had a gun with you...or knew where there was a offical with a gun....is 'murder' to prevent atrocities ok, while 'murder' to punish is not? ...It simply is NOT an issue which has one, simple, general, unambiguous, universal answer!

This issue is ultimately no different than abortion or vegetarianism or whether to spank your children...it CANNOT be argued except from a set of principles.... which vary widely in different cultures and religions.

What would *I* do? I would restrict the death penalty to cases where guilt was not the issue, as in confessions, being 'caught in the act', or in such cases as the DC snipers, where evidence is so overwhelming that there was no doubt. Mental illness? Well, if a human being is so mentally ill that they CANNOT comprehend what they have done, like that delusional man who killed two guards at the U.S. Capitol building, then I would question what we might accomplish by working for years to get them 'sane' enough to try.

There is a concept used in the military and places like the CIA in which some executions/asassinations are carried out 'without prejudice'...that is, the target is 'removed' (yeah...killed) because it is deemed best for the general good. I am QUITE aware that this is an easily abused idea, but I am sort of predicting that, in the future, the basic concept will be used more & more and gradually worked into the legal system...........do I support & agree with this? I truly don't know yet....I hate the IDEA of a society reduced to that position, but I guess MY ox hasen't been gored bad enough yet.











A)bort, R)etry, I)gnore, V)alium?