The problem with this article. and much of the anti-death penalty argument, is that it characterizes the DP as "revenge". The DP, or any penalty, is not revenge, no matter how much an individual wishes it were. All penalties meted out as the result of conviction at trial, by US law, which is based on Judeo-Christian priciples, are to serve justice. Revenge is not, and never has been, a part of our legal system (although, certainly, there are people who attempt to exact revenge in individual cases; humans are certainly flawed).
Revenge is retaliation and carries with it a sense of "this person wronged me so now I get to wrong him"; "he needs to go through what I went through", etc. It's about "victimizing the victimizer". Justice, on the other hand, is about attempting to achieve "fairness"; about compensation, about righting a wrong. In our legal system, it ensures that the person who willfully takes an innocent human life (i.e. that person didn't murder someone) forfeits his own life. In my view, the very basis of civilization. Justice doesn't encompass "an eye for an eye", though, such as torturing a person who tortured someone else. It does involve ensuring that society is safe from that person and that the willful criminal "pays" in a way commensurate with, if not similar to (such as torture) the seriousness and gravity of the crime. If Casey Anthony is found guilty of willfully murdering the very essence of innocent life, a child who isn't even yet at the age of reason, and so not capable of choosing and doing wrong, she forfeits her own life.) Justice demands it.
