An eye for an eye, a death for a death?

Capital punishment. This is one of the most controversial topics in the world. So much so, that even the coalition partner of Fidesz, the Christian Democrats, say that based on their values they have to disagree with the prime minister’s idea. If nothing else comes out of this, at least we can say that there was one party in the modern history of Hungary that formed its opinion based on values.  This is a difficult issue. Personally, I’d like to think that I’m against the death penalty. But it is extremely difficult to argue my point when proponents of capital punishment can cite the case of Ronald Phillips, an American who for a period of time sexually and physically abused his girlfriend’s daughter, the three-year-old Sheila – severely beat her in the head, face and abdomen, threw her against the walls – and eventually murdered the little girl. The United States Constitution states that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. What is a cruel and unusual punishment you might ask? Well, more than 135 years ago the US Supreme Court commented that cruel and unusual punishment includes drawing and quartering, public dissection, burning alive or disembowelment. This means that Ronald Phillips will not have to face any of these, but I can’t help but think that disembowelment and public dissection and drawing and quartering and burning alive – though the last one doesn’t seem to be possible after all the quartering – would be a nice and friendly way to somehow retaliate for what he did.