Though paying lip-service to the motive for the Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate the death penalty, Benson uses an altogether different reason for his view on Arguelles’ execution: revenge.
He fails to give any real analysis of the justification or lack of justification for Arguelles’ temporary stay of execution. In fact, Benson even concedes that in a “civilized country like ours, solving crime by committing it is backwards and democratically incongruous.” Yet in the next sentence, he admits that if he were close to the victim in a capital case he would have a hard time not exacting revenge.
So which is it? If he is thinking rationally and for the good of democracy, he concedes it is wrong. If he responds viscerally then he wants the criminals to suffer. His article doesn’t amount to much more than self indulgence. Are we really willing justify our actions and to build our nation upon an emotional and vengeful foundation? His article is more like a conversation I used to have with my friends when I was 14-years old-full of hot air and devoid of rational analysis. One can believe in the death penalty and find Benson’s article ridiculous at the same time.
Is this what the Chrony has stooped to?
Mike–Do what you want with this. I only had a few minutes to put this into words. Not the best, but all you’ve probably got by now. I mean, really, though, how many people read the summer Chrony?