[E. Pluribus Unum]

While we're at it, let's just abolish the entire criminal justice system because, after all, sometimes people are wrongly convicted.

Vigilante justice has a much smaller margin of error. </sarcasm>

[Alberta's Child]

On moral grounds, I have no problem with having the state carrying out an execution. However, I've come to the realization that a nation as morally and politically fouled-up as ours -- a nation that can produce an OJ jury, a Clinton presidency, and Roe v. Wade -- has no business even putting people in jail, let alone executing them.

Of course, I'll gladly allow for the imprisonment of convicted criminals on basic utilitarian grounds -- but that's only because a criminal conviction and prison sentence can be reversed to a certain extent. An execution cannot be "undone" in any sense of the word.

[SF Republican]

Vigilante justice has a much smaller margin of error I was reading Team of Rivals re Lincolns cabinet. Bates friend was killed in a dual around 1845. Bates was a judge and even though he deplored duals he felt that after they were pretty much abolished (if that is the word) that was when a great deal of liable in papers and courts began. He felt although they were somewhat barbaric it really did keep people in line and that was worth a few deaths a year.