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
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | YesterdayPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | April 27, 2024The University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
