The effort by many to remain steadfast behind the action in the face of this shifting foundation is only accomplished by learning the art of holding different conflicting views at the same time. This is the illness.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote, especially "that the theory of deterrence and retribution which has been the cornerstone of the death penalty has lost support, both logical, judicial and public."
But I don't think the "sickness" characterization is useful or especially apt, since everyone holds conflicting views all the time. It's part of the human condition, imo. If it's 'sick,' as opposed to illogical, we're all sick.
It's probably more useful, imo, to continue to point out contradictions and statistics as they emerge. DNA is a new source of evidence of the unreliability of determinations of guilt, for example.
If our case is strong enough, the zeitgeist and the First Amendment willing, the perceived self interest of the electorate will eventually prevail over prior commitments to archaic views.
I do believe that there will come a time when aged Americans will be trying to explain to their grandchildren why they defended discriminatory executions, or executions of the mentally retarded, or executions of juveniles, or executions by the state at all, just as there are have been those who have had to explain to their grandchildren why they had no problem at the time with poll taxes and segregated water fountains and back-of-the-bus seating. |
