and that stirs some controversy and protests here. This prompted me to give the issue some thought (since it is usually low on my priority list) and share it with others. So here it is.
In principle, I do not favor death penalty as a form of legal punishment, but not for reasons of "sanctity of human life" or fairness - usually quoted by the death penalty opponents. While I believe that killing another human being is in principle wrong, that principle - as any other principle - cannot be taken as absolute on the pain of dogmatism and fundamentalism. That - as any other - principle is circumscribed by laws that specify conditions under which killing is not permitted and under which it may be permitted. Therefore, if the law says that it is ok to kill in retribution for certain offences, I do not see it as incompatible with the general principle proscribing killing human beings.
As to the fairness, this is a mushy concept, but the SC has ruled that death penalty is not hars and unjust punishment under the US constitution, and thus it is "fair" under the US law. What is more SC has ruled that statistical evidence showing that ceratin social groups are more likely than other to receive death penalty for similar offences, does not constitute a proof that any particular case is not "fair" - as long as the due process rules are followed. I fundamentally agree with the SC's position here, for doing otherwise would imply acceptance of the concept of collective punishment or exoneration - which is is incompatible with the modern notion of justice.
The reason I do not support death penalty is more practical - this form of punishment unduly impedes the functioning of the justice system. First, because of its finality (which certainly has an appeal to its supporters), any mistake that leads to a wrongful conviction almost autimatically undermines the confidence in the legal system. Second, because it is such a contentious issue, the administration of justice - jury selection, jury deliberation, sentencing, appeals, and finally the execution - poses a heavy burden on the justice system, and saps its resources that could be employed more efficiently elsewhere. Therefore, I see this form of punishment as a detriment to efficient functioning of the justice system, and it only "advantage" over other forms of punishment - its finality - is more of a deteriment than an "advantage" to me.
At the same time, however, I generally do not side with the death penalty opponents and protesteres. As I see it, these people oppose the sentence because they see it as incompatible with their moral principles taken fundamentally (e.g. the aforementioned sanctity of human life). Therefore, their actions are a form of religious/ideological interference into the functioning of a secular state and a secular justice system.
I find that unaacceptable. If someone was lawfully sentenced to whatever punishment the law permits in a due process, that sentence should be promptly carried out, regardless of moral, religious, or ideological feelings of some citizens. The only way to challenge that is to change the law through a democratic process so death penalty is no longer lawful. Demanding leniency for a lawfuly convicted criminal is in fact an attempt to subvert the concept of justice, and replace it with politics.
Finally, I do not undertand why so many people waste so much energy on this issue. There are thousands if not millions of people in this country who unnecessarily die of preventable causes - lack of adequate health care, unsafe food and products, transportation-related accidents, not to mention violent crime - so preventing these deaths is a far more efficient use of time and energy than trying to spare a few convicted criminals from the gallows.
Wojtek
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com