Capital Punishment

I’m confused about this one.

If you look at the old testament, then indeed “an eye for an eye” invokes capital punishment. This person did something bad, and the state needs to pay them back in the same way; measure for measure.

If you look at the new testament, then the state should invoke a limited response, and send them away somewhere (“turn the other cheek” in a limited sense).

There are other points of view:

1. Should the state behave in the same destructive way? In other words since the guilty party is indeed a murderer, should the state also become a murderer?

2.Also, mistakes do occur. Sometimes, due to miscarriages of justice, innocent people get sent to the gallows. Is it not worth the state saving 1 innocent person even if it means the state not killing 10 guilty ones?

Of course, if someone killed someone I loved then perhaps I would like to pay this person back with the same coin, if not more (we are all human, and vengeful after all). But is this justice (I think this is the way Dukakis’ should’ve answered the question that was posed to him 10 years ago regarding what would he do if someone raped his wife)? I mean, just ’cause I wanna get back to this person and have my fill, doesn’t mean that justice for all is served.

Can I decide whether someone lives or dies? Can the state? If the state can, due to capital punishment, then why should’nt the state decide who lives or dies in other cases (example: euthanasia)?

How do we guarantee that the state’s decisions are unbiased, objective, and not discriminatory?

On the other hand, how do we set the right example (we being the state since the state is afterall all of us) and discourage murder and other heavy sins?

Difficult ethical question; I’m not sure there’s an answer.