[lizziebith]

I'm against the death penalty for many of the reasons listed above, plus, I'm very uncomfortable with any government having life-or-death power over its citizens.

I've always acknowledged that the survivors of murder victims have a legitimate claim to some sort of revenge (however distasteful that seems in the abstract). But I've felt that the death penalty is not the right route because it isn't direct. If family members of victims were pulling the switch or doing the injection, then the death penalty would be far more defensible, but I bet few family members COULD do that...which begs the question: would you be pro-death penalty if you had to "pull the trigger" yourself? Or is it only O.K. if someone else does the dirty work...I've thought of the death penalty before as "murder by proxy" on the part of survivors.

But to take the other side of that argument: is it fair to ask people who'd never normally be inclined to murder to be the killers of a killer?

Maybe we should be asking that question of family members...because it really highlights the act in question.

Finally, if someone (God/dess forbid) murdered my child, I would not leave it up to the government. If I had compelling evidence as to the identity of the killer, I'd actually buy a gun and hunt that sucker down. Which opens up a whole can of worms about vigilante justice, and why we have due process, appeals, etc.

Well, this is a complex issue...and I just wanted to convey some of my (obviously) confused thoughts on it.