Capital punishment is one of those issues that, unlike gun control or abortion, can't have its efficacy proven nor can it forever stay in the safe haven of moral subjectivity. It is a morally ambiguous approach to a utilitarian purpose that has remained an issue because "cruel and unusual" is legalese slang for "in my humble opinion." Tookie Williams, father of the crips gang, died this midnite morn, executed by the state. He was, in the twilight of his life, a reformed man who sought to give kids on the gang track the hope and wisdom to derail.
But he never admitted his guilt, and for that he should die.
Wow, now that causes a protest even within myself. I'm very conflicted about this issue. For the purposes of efficacy even, executing him will either strip all hope and inspiration from current felons and cause them to direct their anger at the "man" with renewed strength, or it will send a message that a crime is a crime is a crime and you can't just reform after your sins are satiated.
So clearly, no right answer. Personally, I think he should have confessed, then had the decision for his execution given to the families of the victims. The murder itself should be sanctioned by the state, and if the victims desire it enough, they should do it themselves. One may argue that the victims would be the least objective, but that's entirely the point. Capital punishment needs be a justice for victims, and no more. It should not even be in Arnie's power to say so. If the court system is fair, then only the victims should have veto. If the court system is not fair, then it should be made so. I believe over time, it has only gotten fairer.
Revenge is healthy. I love it. It is personal and the state has no business but in sanctioning it. Those who think it leaves you empty have not tasted it, or have not had the right reasons for it. Dominique, I'm looking at you. If your children only knew. But it's too soon, and we'll let the dish cool as that's how it is best served.