The question of capital punishment, by and large, is one I prefer to sidestep: while I have a long (and growing) list of people whose demise I believe would greatly enhance life as I know it, I am not keen on having the State act as my agent in arranging for same. (If you think this boils down to "If you had any guts, you'd kill them yourself," you might be right.) When the pollsters ask about it, and they always do, I list myself as a half-hearted supporter at best.
Then there's Lindsay Beyerstein, who doesn't support it at all. When I first read this piece, I took it as a reduction ad absurdum, liberally (so to speak) spiced with moral equivalence. But by the third reading, it had ceased to be as simple as all that.
The pitch: Ken Lay is, we are told, already dead. However, death-penalty supporters, Beyerstein says, should have considered Lay and his ilk as candidates for state-sponsored snuffing:
I don't support the death penalty, but if I did, Kenny Boy would have been first in line. Ken Lay did far more harm than the average murderer, or even the average terrorist. He left thousands of people destitute, including workers whose pensions evaporated and students whose college savings disappeared. How many people will die in poverty because of Lay? How many students lost the opportunity to go to college because of the Enron swindle? How many lives were shortened because the innocent employees of Enron and Arthur Andersen lost their jobs and health benefits?