Pearlbear writes about the Tookie Williams execution. The death penalty is wrong. Christians say it is wrong. Buddhists say it is wrong. So Unitarian Universalists can say it is wrong without be scolded for being liberals.
He might have been a gangster. He might actually have committed the crimes for which he was convicted. He might have protested his innocence to the end of his life because he was lacking in true repentance. He might have not have been "redeemed" even though he did lots of social constructive things. But Pearlbear is right, those things are extraneous arguments meant to convince people who have no qualms about their own government engaging in revenge murder. Violence begets violence, and the only way to break the escalating spiral of violence is to work toward an ethical preference for non-violent means. Religious liberals lose their moral authority when they engage in the rationalizations of secular liberalism.
Can we overcome crime in our cities without the death penalty? Of course we can, in fact it is the state's use of violence that legitimizes its use As Pearlbear writes "We used to know that, a while back, but we lost our way. It's time to find our way back."
Is the death penalty wrong, or immoral?
It was wrong in Illinois because we couldn't carry it out without a big risk of executing the wrong person.
The Gov suspended it.
Many religious authorities will argue it's moral. Now and in the past.
Spend some time volunteering in a prison if you haven't already. It's a real eye opener.
Rudi Giuliani problemly has down the most to show the way to reduce crime in American cities.
I am conflicted on the death penalty. When focusing on individual cases, I can see instances where it is justified. Looking at the big picture, I sometimes wonder if it's more trouble than it's worth. I do have a problem with calling it "revenge murder." That's like calling a prison prison term "revenge kidnapping."