Michael Khavari wrote in his recent article, "Deadly decisions," (Oct. 12) that the death penalty is "barbaric" and "ancient." You may disagree with the "eye for an eye" sense of justice that is the foundation of the death penalty, but to act like it's some kind of relic of an ignorant past is ridiculous. It's human nature that people will always have different opinions about justice. There will always be people supporting "an eye for an eye," just as there will always be people supporting a more compassionate and merciful policy towards the condemned. I don't think we should call another's sense of justice barbaric merely because it differs from our own. One of history's most enlightened figures, the philosopher Immanuel Kant, stated that if an offender "has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death." So please, call the death penalty unjust if you wish, but don't use hyperbolic terms like "barbarian" and "blood-lust" when debating this issue. Kant was no bloodthirsty barbarian!
George Pisano\nCLAS II
Read More
KURTZWEIL: Threats to learning cannot be met with cowardice
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoResisting an unjust system should be at the forefront of university policy.
CASTAGNO: Closing the Federal Executive Institute fails local residents
By Conall Costagno | 5 days agoThe unwilling departure of the FEI from Charlottesville represents the severing of a constructive accord between the government and the University.
COHEN: Facing federal cuts, U.Va. must defend affordability
By Ryan Cohen | April 3, 2025In this uncertain environment, the University must act creatively and strategically to ensure it can maintain its commitment to affordability.
