Death penalty ironies

Regarding Ellen Goodman's Oct. 14 column "Death and decency," my belief is that American ambivalence on the death penalty issue could be minimized if each individual would answer a few questions honestly.

First, do I accept that it is the state's role to exact revenge in a way that is irrevocable? Am I satisfied that the justice system is close enough to infallible to prevent execution of innocent citizens? Would I feel comfortable enough with the reality of executions to allow them to be carried out in daylight hours and could I watch without flinching?

If Americans can answer yes to these questions, then quibbling about the mechanics of a relatively humane method seems unnecessary. Why be so squeamish about a technique that beats ancient execution methods hands down?

But here's the irony: If "Americans overwhelmingly support the death penalty," as Goodman says, why are we obsessed with providing a painless death? Why is a penalty designed to exact retribution followed by the need to provide a death as gentle as the euthanasia of a family pet? Could it be that deep down we are aware that judicial incompetence and racial and socioeconomic inequality increase the likelihood that the condemned might actually be innocent? At least we can say he went peacefully.

Marlene Clegg

Cary