Quandry: If you execute a death row inmate, there is always a chance the execution goes wrong, and the executed dies a miserable death.
Of course, if you let the inmate live they might die a miserable death.
Although I am not a big fan of the death penalty, I find the argument that we should abolish the penalty because of the possibility the executed might feel pain unsatisfying.
Trying to make humanity in execution an absolute is absurd. I say that, if on average the pain suffered by the executed is less than what would be expected in a natural death, then we are being humane.
This case, where the Supreme Court might abolish the death penalty on an esoteric argument about absolutes, is a prime example of Judicial activism at its worse.
You can find absolutist positions and paradoxes in every conceivable topic. The pattern used in this case really is one where the court legislates from the bench.
Even though I am not big on the death penalty, the abolition of the death penalty needs to go through the legislative branch to be authentic. Death penalty opponents are wrong for trying to pursue their goals in the court. It is the wrong venue.
Our country is in a mess because our Courts spend their days trying to legislate and adminstrate policies. The legislature spends its days putting people on public trial and trying to micromanage the administration of policy. The administration spends its day writing legislation and trying to find ways to skirt court rulings.
Our government is failing because the branches of government spend their days trying to take on authorities that are best left with the other branches. Meanwhile they fail in accomplishing their own duties.