I am not an abolitionist. I would support the death penalty for types such as Henry Kissinger and other war criminals and criminals against humanity. After a proper trial with death-qualified counsel, due process up the wazoo, etc., of course. As the facts are, capital punishment is an (expensive!) excuse to kill minorities who kill whites. It is freakish, a violation of due process and equal protection, and racist to the core. We are not civilized enough to have it. jks
WS:
I agree. I have litle doubt that capital punihsment is often a form of racist revenge (albeit I can think of some deserving types on the death row too) - but so is much of our criminal justice system (e.g. drug laws). I also think that severity of punishment should be proportional to one's social position and the breech of public trust asscoated with crime. Thus not only war criminals, but also any leader who breeches public trust should be held to higher standards and punished more severely, which in certain circumstances may include capital punishment. But that is the issue of the application not the principle.
My question is that why should one oppose the capital punishment in principle, rather than its application to a particular case or set of cases? I cannot see any reasons either for or againts it. I find the "hang them high" crowd is repulsive, but so are the death row inmates. At this point, I'd rather avoid taking sides on this issue, and do not particularly appreciate if someone forces the issue on me.
Wojtek