You can offer your own opinion on it being insulting hyperbole, but how can a subjective judgment on national civility and the morality of the death penalty be "factually inaccurate"?
Quite simply because it does not allow for the existence of civilization or civilized society, which there is in America in abundance, where capital punishment is practiced. It also implies that societies that don't practice it are inherently civilized, or at least more so than states that do. If you look at comparative levels of violence and crime in states and nations that do practice capital versus those that don't, I think you'll find that such implications do not hold water.
(for instance, your state of Michigan was actually the first English-speaking government in the world to ban the death penalty in 1846 and it remains banned there and in 15 other states and DC).
I'm well aware of this fact. I actually pointed it out to my girlfriend's father (from the UK) when he made a point concerning capital punishment in the US. Ironic that after Michigan had banned it public hangings were still being carried out in Canada, just across the river.
I can't disagree with her assessment though. It sickens me that the death penalty is practiced here, and carried out in such a clearly unfair way on top of that depending on race and wealth especially.
I'm with you there. It is ineffectively and selectively carried out. Our justice system is largely that way - ineffective and unjust. I think it should be used equally on everyone, regardless of what walk of life they come from, and replace life imprisonment everywhere, including where "three strikes" laws are in place.
The whole policy doesn't even make sense. While the number of executions in the US is high relative to other first world nations, relative to the number of murders in the US it is remarkably rarely used, so what's the point? It's certainly not to protect anyone from murderers getting out at some point if that's the case, or it would be far more frequently used. No, it's a state or national tool of vengeance, a government-sponsored version of the ridiculous revenge fantasies that crop up around TrekBBS whenever a particularly heinous crime is discussed. And like that, people can hide behind anonymity and someone else carrying out the actual deed so they can sound tough, when if they actually had to take part or witness it directly they might not be so cavalier about it all.
I have no problem with vengeance, either personal or state-run, though I believe in the case of the state it should require overwhelming evidence against the accused, as theoretically it does. As for anonymity, I'm in favor of bringing back public hangings, that all may see what happens when heinous crimes are committed and the perpetrators are caught.
It doesn't serve as a deterrent in any way, it's wasteful in taxpayer funds and government resources, and it's extremely divisive and paints our country and individual states in a bad light with much of the world and even many of our own citizens.
I can't argue that much of the world looks down on it, but I cannot agree that it is inherently unjustified, especially in the face of so many violent, repeat offenders that after a stint in jail (where they learn more criminal behavior) are free to walk the streets again. Add to that a growing population and dwindling food supplies, and it makes more and more sense for society to have a built-in population control valve, as it were, to remove the worst elements of society from common street thugs to corrupt politicians and businessmen in a very permanent fashion. Carrying out executions publicly will go a long way to increase the deterrence factor.
