>Yep. I might want that person dead and he might deserve to be dead, but the state killing people in our name is still wrong.
>
>And why is it "wrong"? Anyone who makes the decision to take away an innocent person's life, can no longer claim rights to his own life.
>
>For years, our country has gone in the wrong direction regarding the death penalty - we've been to concerned about making it "clean", as if to make it the same as euthenizing a pet.
>
>Andy Rooney, for all his silliness, had a great idea that might, just might, make people think twice - instead of making it "quiet and painless", we should be searching for the most ruthless, the most painful, the most vicious method possible.
>
>(Maybe we should get Tobin Bell to design a few horror chambers - every time I watch the Saw movies, I think to myself, "my god, our government could hire this guy to carry out justice against killers")
>
>Is it cruel and barbaric? Of course it is...it's supposed to be barbaric - it's supposed to send a message to society - that when you take someone's life, this is what will happen to you. But the one thing it is not...it is NOT unusual. An eye for an eye...
>
>As a teen I lost a classmate/friend to murder, so I know it's possible to grieve and mourn for a loss and still want to see (and even lobby for) the murderer put to death. I'll bet the family and friends of Jasper Howard want to see the scumbag that stabbed him put to death...it's about time the state starts setting some examples.

Please explain this conundrum to me. If killing another person is the most heinous possible act, how is killing the killer appropriate?

I know you don't care what other countries think but IMO it says something that we are the only advanced nation with a death penalty.