I believe that capital punishment is the right thing in the most serious of cases, and if it's to be used at all, should be used sparingly and judiciously. Thinking about the hanging of Saddam Hussein got me to thinking about exactly what I mean by that.

I think that the state, because its concern is supposed to be the overall welfare of society, must decide whether to kill somebody based solely on whether the execution would benefit the entire society. It's not so much the role of the state to seek justice for the individual (which is often indistinguishable from revenge, in any case), nor is it so much to try and balance some karmic checkbook of justice (as in choosing to imprison Saddam for life because it's a more painful punishment).

The question the state should ask is simply this: Will the execution of the evildoer heal a wound in the social fabric, make society whole again, or ease some malaise affecting the people as a whole? What will the symbolism of the execution accomplish?

In a sense it's a question of narrative fitness: Is execution the proper end to the story?

In the case of Saddam Hussein, the answer is a resounding yes. His story had to end this way, or there'd be something out of whack with the universe. What we all gain from his death is the primal reassurance that, sometimes, justice is done, and that the universe works the way we wish it worked. The story came to a satisfying conclusion.

Sometimes we need to let go of the intellectual pretension that we can think our way through every question, and just acknowledge that at heart we're frightened primates who need to see the tiger die in order to find the courage to face the next one.

Saddam Hussein's death served such a purpose.