I’ve read Rod’s piece. It’s well done. And, of course, I disagree with it (why else have a debate?). I guess my basic problem with Rod’s position is a simple one. He opposes the death penalty out of pragmatism, not principle. If the death penalty were perfect in its implementation, I seem to gather, Rod would have no problem with it. His problem is the error rate. Fair enough. Pro-death penalty people aren’t in favor of the error rate either.

But what I don’t understand is why Rod leaps from endorsing the death penalty in principle to opposing it in practice simply because the system needs fixing. Why not propose raising the evidentiary standard for imposing the death penalty? Why not suggest the establishment of a new court to hear such cases? Why not demand a special counsel to investigate every death row case? In short, why does Rod assume the system cannot be refined, improved or otherwise corrected? It sounds to me like Rod’s argument would demand the abolition of the military because it cannot promise to elminate friendly fire.

Compare it to affirmative action. Someone opposed to special treatment based on race would oppose a mend-it-don’t-end-it solution because you cannot “fix” a fundamental injustice. But if, in principle, you agree with affirmative action — but are clear-eyed about its excesses — you would enthusiastically endorse a mend-it-don’t-end-it approach. Rod is not opposed to the death penalty as a matter of principle, so why not offer ways to mend it instead of ending it?