The issue of capital punishment has never been an easy one to address for our generation. Bridget Sharkey’s Monday’s column, however, is especially problematic.

She would have us determine on which side of the argument we place our sympathies based upon the antics of the crowd outside of the execution room. She proposes that what the crowds witnessed “should tell you capital punishment is a crazy, antisocial idea.”

I agree that the crowd did indeed act more like animals than life-conscious people. These execution attendees, however, can hardly be a representative group for those who would feel the appropriation of the death sentence is feasible in some instances. I do not ask that others disagree with Ms. Sharkey’s stance. I only ask that their decision be made on moral ground rather than the desire to disassociate themselves from those who celebrate the means of justice rather than the ends.

Ms. Sharkey’s statement, “three cheers for civilization,” forces one to ask if we are more civilized by choosing to execute a person or by allowing that person to continue to live out his or her natural life. Should we show mercy to those who chose not to show mercy to their victims? Or does a choice for execution only reflect that we are at the same level as that criminal?

Are we more civilized by punishing with severity those who violate laws with severity? Or are we more civilized by condemning them to a lesser existence?

These are some of the questions we must ask ourselves, rather than creating an emotionally charged decision based upon the actions of fanatics and fringe elements on either side of the fence.

Benjamin Downs

graduate student