I find the concept of capital punishment horrifying. However many of these people on death row are psychopaths and habitual criminals. Most of them can not be reformed. I find this who issue very confusing. Rhetorical question: Why do we have the death penalty? Is it to deter capital crimes? I do not think it would deter crimes of passion, e.g. O.J. Simpson murdering his wife. I do not think it would deter the Hannibal Lector type serial killer or hard core traitors like the Rosenbergs. It might deter certain types of habitual criminals who are not normally murderous, e.g. professional thieves. Next rhetorical question: Should we make capital punishment more terrible, e.g. torture then execution followed by mutilation of the corpse? The British did this for years. Does capital punishment with torture provide better deterrence or does it merely brutalize society? If the answer is "Yes, it does brutalize society", then does our antiseptic method of execution with the needle also brutalize society? Does the benefit of removing dangerous habitual criminals outweigh the social cost of brutalizing society? Should we make capital punishment super antiseptic, e.g. Hand the condemed prisoner a tasty fruit drink that includes a strong narcotic (like Socrates drinking hemlock) and then give him a lethal injection while he's asleep? Would this not provide adequate deterrence?

Lots of questions but very few answers. I'm confused......

Gary