So you support a state that aids and abets what you perceive to be a “personal need for revenge”? I’m not convinced there is a “need” for revenge. Rather, I see it as a desire that the state should not support.

Now, I do underastand such grief and rage and anger that fuels the personal need for revenge. My suggestion is this: If the closest survivor, and only the closest survivor, of a murder victim wants to pull the trigger, push the button to rel;ease the poison, swing open the gallows, throw the switch, or whatever, and do it publicly, maybe there’s an alternative. Details to be worked out, of course. But it could be done.

I do believe in the He-needed-killin’ Law. But I don’t want the state to be the one doin’ the killing.

Can laws (i.e. a “justice system”) be written without emotional involvement? That continuum would depend on each person involved in drafting the law. Regardless, shouldn’t those considering a law’s purpose aim for justice via their conscience and reason – rather than emotion or religious beliefs?