Where's the logic?

I have been opposed to capital punishment since I first wrote an essay on the subject as a college freshman, almost 60 years ago.

"Capital punishment." What a euphemism for the State's act of cold-bloodedly and with all due deliberation killing people that are in its custody and who pose no immediate threat to anyone.

Now wait. I am in no way meaning to minimize what horrible crimes these prisoners may have committed. But I do not think a civilized society should pursue "an eye for an eye" policy. Keep them from further crime, sure; protect the public, definitely. But that can be done by life without parole.

This came to my attention today in a news article about the man in Ohio whose execution by lethal injection was botched when they couldn't get a needle into a vein despite repeated attempts. His lawyer says it violates the constitutional protection against "cruel and unusual punishment." A judge has ordered a 10 day stay of execution.

Where is the logic? If you're going to kill someone, what does it matter if it hurts? Why wouldn't you want it to hurt a lot? If you can't find a vein, why not just shoot him or cut off his head, like they used to?

Likewise, we don't execute people who are too mentally retarded to understand why we're killing them, nor do we execute the psychotic until we can make them sane with drugs so they know what's happening. Then we kill them.

My argument is this: if we're going to be brutal (in my opinion) why get fastidious about the details?

My larger argument is not that we should be insensitive but that we should rethink the whole practice of capital punishment. I consider it barbarous. And the heinous behavior of the convicted does not excuse our descending to their level of barbarism as well.

That's what I think.

Ralph