Eye for an eye

So today in the school paper someone, a columnist who I had thought was a good democrat, went off on why the Peterson guy should get the death penalty. Let's just say I am wildly against the death penalty. It is more expensive than life in death, it doesn't appear to deter crime, it is blatantly racist and prejudiced against the poor, it is wrong and it is permanent. Think about that. What if they make a mistake? People have been pulled off death row before, after evidence is found or reviewed. People have been proven innocent too late. I don't think that the government has the right to decide who lives and who dies. I actually think it is a really bad idea to give some judicial system the power over life and death.
But regardless, the thing that really got my goat was this columnist said that she believes in an eye for an eye. This neat little snippet out of the old testament is used so often to justify the death penalty that it makes me want to puke. What most of the parrots don't realize is that in the society where this principle was applied, they never actually took eyes in exchange for eyes, or killed people who killed others. It simply means that the punishment has to fit the crime. If you stole someone's goat, that person wouldn't get your goat in return, they would get a predecided amount of gold equaling the value of a goat. If someone poked your eye out, you did not get to poke their eye out; they would give you an amount of gold apparently equal to an eye. And so it is blatantly stupid to try and use this quote in support of the death penalty, as it was
never involved with the death penalty, merely ensuring that punishments fit crimes.

Also, think about in this case, if Scott Peterson is innocent. Not only was his wife and child killed, and he was blamed for it, but he was killed for it? That would suck ass.