The death penalty condemns us all

When Lady Justice takes a count of bleeding hearts outside the execution chamber, she won't find mine among them.

I am no passionate opponent of the death penalty. I am rather a dispassionate objector to the premise that taking another's life, no matter how undeserving the person may be to draw another breath, brings anything resembling justice to a society too in love with revenge.

We've Dirty-Harry'd ourselves into believing that one bad act deserves another. Emotionally, this seems unarguable. But the rational mind should struggle with what makes no logical sense. An eye for an eye merely leaves two sockets vacant.

The recent horror show in Oklahoma where convicted murderer and rapist Clayton Lockett's execution went awry has revived debate about the death penalty. Apparently, one of Lockett's veins blew and the three-drug cocktail failed to kill him quickly - and humanely. Instead, he convulsed and remained alive for 43 minutes before dying of a heart attack.

Reactions have ranged from 'who cares?” to renewed protests from abolitionists. The first group consists mostly of people who knew Lockett's victim or were members of her community. The latter, often dismissed as elitist intellectuals with no direct experience, has focused primarily on whether the procedure in question was 'inhumane.”

Humane death most Americans find acceptable, while death that involves suffering offends our sensibilities and the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Viewed from the humane perspective, the challenge is to find better ways for the state to kill in its execution of justice. Or, in its prosecution of state-sanctioned revenge, depending on how one sees things.

The question is whether between death and leniency there isn't some punishment that serves justice and our humanity.

State Rep. Mike Christian, R-Oklahoma City, spoke for many of when he said he wasn't bothered by Lockett's suffering. Acknowledging his harshness, he said that as a father and former lawman, 'I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions.”

No one is immune to these emotions, but we should recognize them as such. The emotional urge to kill as a palliative to disconsolate pain is real and not rare.

Rationally, there is no redeeming return on a death warrant. Instead, by condoning state executions, especially under such controlled, calculated circumstances, we passively are complicit in the taking of a defenseless life. We don't inject the cocktail, obviously, but by our consent to murder - even if we call it justifiable - we are part of the lion's den. This is what concerns me most.

To my own vengeful eye, life in prison is far more excruciating than a 43-minute execution. Far worse is a confined life without privilege or diversion - except perhaps for books because reading keeps the mind sharp, all the better to remain alert to one's malignant fate.

Inhumane? Who cares?

Though my intentions be cruel, I'd rather not participate in the death of another except as self-defense. The additional specter of executing someone convicted in error further resigns me to the conclusion that our challenge is not in becoming more efficient executioners - but in becoming too civilized to want to be.