>>I'm not comfortable with the idea of torture at all. But I am also not comfortable with issues that complex being decided in an atmosphere of self-righteousness and disconnection from reality. Very much the way I feel about abortion, actually. Things this morally complex have to be decided very personally and not subjected to other, less involved, people imposing absolutist notions that are easy for them, but create burdens and consequences that they often can ignore.
>
>I can follow your thoughts in case of abortion totally. But what on the other side ? The judicial system is also created to stop "blind revenge", but sometimes I find the victims should be given greater say. In case of capital punishment should the relatives decide/given a voice on his going to death row *if* he is convicted by a "unrelated" jury ?

I don't believe capital punishment is important, in the sense that it cannot improve the original outcome, so the use of it can serve only three functions : catharsis, security and disposal. The later two just involves protecting society from even the chance of recidivism if a sociopathy is even possibly irreversible, and eliminating the need to house, feed and guard an individual whose life is otherwise over, diverting limited resources from aiding those whose life yet has hope. I'd support it on either of those grounds.

As to catharsis, I think the family of the victim should indeed have input into how much they would feel benefit. That being said, I'm not sure they should have veto power as their experience of catharsis is not the only one at issue. But if they feel strongly the need for the murderer to die - fair enough.

But again, I don't much care. I would actually be okay with a ban on capital punishment but a culturally recognized custom of jury nullification in prosecuting family members who 'take the law into their own hands' You can't codify it, you can only excuse it.

Would I personally take the life of someone who had harmed ( not even necessarily killed ) a loved one. Absolutely. Would probably prefer it to having the state do it in my name. Would I want the state to sanction or encourage that, probably not. ( unless the legislation specified me by name and otherwise discouraged it )

( if Mike Dukakis had answered that question right he might have been President <s> )