This is the second article in Slate that heavily implies that the only people who could possibly have an input on the death penalty issue are those rabidly for it or rabidly against it. It says that those (rabidly) for it don't want to see it made gentler, because they want these people to suffer. And those (rapidly) against it don't want it to see it made gentler, they want to see it go away.


However, most people (like on all issues) don't fall into extremist sides of the camps. Most people have either an attitude of "If we can't do away with it...at least we can make it painless." on one side, or "It is just to take a life for a life. But plain and dirty sadism isn't just at all, it's just plain sick. Let's exact justice where justice is due, but let's not lower ourselves to sadism in the process."

I support the death penalty. But I'm not a sadist. I want justice to be done, but I don't get pleasure out of seeing other people in horrible pain, even convicted murderers. I think that is the position of most ordinary supporters of the death penalty. And I just don't understand how Slate's writers could not have come across or thought of this more moderate and (I think) more common position.

If we were really interested in humane execution, we'd do it the way the Russians do it. One day, unannounced, the condemned person is marched to a special cell and gets a bullet in the back of the head. There's no pain, and not much opportunity to become all anxious about dying because it happens so fast. The odd part is, we consider the Russian method barbaric. I'm sure they say the same of us.

I share your concerns from the other side of the policy divide and hope for the complexity in the public you reference.

Kneejerk appeals dont' appeal, even if I support the ideology and cause being supported.

-j