Opposition to CP is an absolute position. Endorsement of CP can be “nuanced” to a fare-thee well i.e. how sure, how many, how nasty, etc.

But, say yes one time and you are no longer an opponent.

For a variety of reasons, I oppose capital punishment in all instances but one …

I am tormented by capital punishment. I’m against it except for genocidal mass murderers, terrorists (no tears shed for McVeigh), child murderers, and now pregnant lady stalker/murderer/mutilators. You’d think I was pro-capital punishment, wouldn’t you?

Face it – if there’s a single instance in which you favor capital punishment, under any circumstances whatever, then you don’t oppose it; you support it.

Which is fine, but don’t try to have it both ways (”oppose it, but …”). It’s not as though some murderers have cloven hooves that distinguish them as deserving death, while others do not. It’s a judgment call in each case.

“He made a furtive movement sir!”

“Specialist, you called in a JDAM on him. Are we supposed to try this sponge now?”

“It’s guilty DNA, sir!”

Since I have pointed guns at people with every intention of shooting them, I cannot say I object to the death penalty. I think, in the end, it is the ultimate expression of society’s repudiation of an action.

That said, I am uneasy with giving the state the power to impose a punishment it cannot retract. Even if you don’t believe every anti-capital punishment horror story, mistakes certainly have been made in the past. Perhaps, grueling as it is, the current system is the only tolerable one…

Don’t let the obfuscators fool you. For all their defenders’ blather about the horrors of life imprisonment in solitary, killers will take it over death — every time.

And that is why death is the APPROPRIATE punishment for death.

Instead of making the killer accountable to the extent of his crime, we put him away for long enough that he may hopefully reform himself. But in doing so we perform an act that erodes the possibility of a true atonement. By denying our retribution of the murder, we put ourselves on a pedestal that the murderer can never obtain. Any effort to atone for his sins ñ e.g. a lifetime of clearing land mines ñ is an impossible attempt to climb on our pedestal. The more heroic his efforts, the more he is compromised by his desire for heroism and to be recognized for such, when perhaps it would be more just that he just quietly disappear. Why shouldnít we expect the murderer who comes to the self-realization that allows him to take responsibility for his act, to commit suicide, if we, the self-righteous, havenít done the dirty job first? Is the case against c.p. simply that we should give the killer the chance to kill himself? C.P. opponents usually say they are against it because killing is wrong. Yes, but isnít real forgiveness only possible if we admit ourselves to be as sinful as the killer? Is there any solid position between an eye for an eye, and the liberal utopia?

Worked for him, even though not a single legitimate lead materialized.

The trials and executions of Saddam and his henchman will serve as notice of the return of law to the Iraqi people. I fail to see the necessity of long or complicated legal processes but the trial and execution of despots in accordance with the law of the country where they ruled may actually ameliorate some of the retributive violence that is to be expected as the Iraqis assume more responsibility for their own security. Hanging Saddam may save Tikrit from a pogrom by the Kurds. I can’t think of any reason from my understanding of ME custom why the majority of Iraqi’s would not applaud and encourage a systematic hunt for and elimination of the al Tikriti clan.

I do applaud Charlie’s sentiment, though. It may have been wiser to just toss in a grenade when Saddam was in his hole.