That motive is seflish and thus fatal. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 23/09/2011 01:18:10 AM
I am also appalled by prematurely foreclosing the opportunity for repentance and salvation that I consider so priceless; I recognize that many people do not find that compelling, but would not want to answer for it personally. I hope GA got the right man, but God only knows; anyone else is only guessing.
As Johnson said, "...when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully..." The certainty of imminent death would then be a far better incentive for the condemned to get his act together and get himself right with God, and make his apologies. When there is any hope of freedom or putting off death, most will seize on that slim chance, rather than taking measures to prepare for the certainty of death. Once of the greatest graces a man can be granted is to know the time and date of his particular judgement years in advance. Better to have all the spiritual solace and opportunities for meditation and prayer afforded by the time spent on death row than the hubbub and violence of normal life in a prison for murderers.
Fear of Hell can excuse no one from it; only love from and for God can. I forget which Pithy Pet Phrase that is, but I stand by it. That remains my biggest problem with fire and brimstone theology: It encourages hollow "repentance" based on self preservation rather than reverence and devotion to God. As James said, "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!" Christianity is not a "get out of Hell free card," and treating it as such is horribly dangerous.
And on the practical side, since we're getting into non-legal/justice grounds, when there is no death penalty, and the ultimate penalty is never getting out of prison, what does a convict risk by repeated and violent escape attempts? What penalty can then deter a man who cannot legally be released, from improvising weapons and cutting a bloody path to freedom? Even if he fails, society can do nothing more to him beyond lock him up to try again and again. And finally, if a man cannot be deterred by the threat of death, only death can stop him. Those who argue that the death penalty does not deter criminals thus provide the ultimate practical argument for putting criminals to death.
It may surprise you to hear, but I accept those practical arguments, in principle; my solution would be to bring back things like Alcatraz and Devils Island. The Rock (and syphilis) broke Capone, and no successful escape has ever been confirmed; the only possible candidate is three guys who made it beyond the wall and, if they also made it through 20 miles of frigid shark infested water, were never seen or heard from again, despite being such incorrigible criminals that they wound up at Alcatraz. Send the most violent repeat offenders to some inescapable island to live by the jungle law for which they rejected the laws of God and man, periodically airlifting them food and water, if necessary. Many would still die, but their blood would be on each others hands, not yours or mine, and the potential to free wrongfully connected prisoners would remain in most cases (though restricting such sentences to the worst repeat offenders would reasonably ensure inmates were violent criminals even if their most RECENT conviction were erroneous.)
What such a practice would not do is continue the execution of people later discovered to be innocent with no recourse to correcting that injustice. I fail to see why killing an innocent is so great an evil in an individual that it merits death but an inevitable acceptable VIRTUE in a state.