I live in a European country. Even with such phenomena as universal health care and free university education, there are lots of things that are horribly wrong where I live. Even so, it is at least somewhat comforting to know that in vitrually all European countries, the death penalty is considered a dark spot in history rather than a vehicle for justice. F.i., in order to acquire EU membership, a state must no longer practice capital punishment. If a state still executes people, that state is not considered civilized enough to be a part of the European Union.
In other words, European leaders have moved out of the middle ages.
In the US, however, even the most "progressive" presidential candidate has not.
"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment," he wrote in his book "The Audacity of Hope."
In other words, Obama believes that the only reason the US should keep practicing judicial murder, is that it makes people feel better. And not just the victims immediately affected by the crime, but the community. Society. The American People.
The distinction between the angry mob and the impartial state is thus removed for reasons of populism, sadism and revenge.
And now, even the largely conservative US Supreme Court, has become to radical for Obama.
Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children, a crime he said states have the right to consider for capital punishment.
Of course, Obama realizes that a presidential nominee must hold opinions that are acceptable to the majority of voters, rather than try to change public opinion on the basis that certain actions may be immoral, even if they are supported by a majority of the people.
In 1988, a question about rape and capital punishment tripped up Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis.
Dukakis was asked during a nationally televised debate with Republican George H. W. Bush whether he'd still oppose the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered.
His unemotional, dispassionate answer was ridiculed, and gave Republicans more material to paint him as an emotionless liberal.
Whenever rights of vicitms and human rights collide, a statesman needs to recognize that while it may be understandable for individuals to sometimes be guided by anger, hate, love, greed, lust, pride and other such emotions that make us human, public policy and state actions guided by the same passions can neither be moral nor rational.
Alan Watts once said he considered life to be a bit like art. That is to say: When faced with difficult dilemmas, he would try to ask himself: Which decision is in some sense greater?
Like most other US presidential candidates have done, Obama is appealing to the most easily accessible sentiments of the electorate when considering the death penalty, but even more so than those who contend that capital punishment has some kind of preventive effect: Obama is reassuring the voters that there are still instances where They the People can kill defenseless human beings -- and like it. It's ok!
This is certainly not the art of statesmanship. It is rather conveying popular reactionary principles in the form of tasteless kitch. But once again, it is, it seems, what it takes to get elected.