Most primitive societies deal with capital crimes with either interminable blood feuds between families or by using community pressure to force the offender to pay a heavy fine to the survivors of the victim. Another alternative is banishment (equivalent to a death sentence in some environments).

A death penalty with fair due process is the practical way to deal with the problem and put it to rest once and for all. It provides deterrent and vengeance, or at least, closure, and the opportunity for reconciliation among the survivors.

However, I am personally opposed to the death penalty, but NOT because it is inhumane or barbaric (some bastards are better off dead!), but because I don't trust the state to carry it out justly and consistently. I am always amazed that many people who don't trust the government to assess, collect or spend taxes are perfectly willing to give it the right to execute criminals. The real issue isn't whether some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty or not, that goes ithout saying. It's whether the condemned man actually committed the crime in the first place, or whether he had any justification even if he did.

I've always wondered why so many people fail to see this distinction, and simply lump all opposition to capital punishment as wimpy do-gooderism. As far as I'm concerned, getting the right guy is much more important than hanging a suspect.