Let's issue a stay of execution on executions.

A California man, who had been scheduled to be executed last night, has been given a short reprieve, thanks to the consciences of two anesthesiologists. Michael Angelo Morales, convicted for the rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl 25 years ago, will draw breath for at least one more day.

Morales attorneys had previously argued that the combination of chemicals used in lethal injections would cause excruciating pain, and therefore violate the eighth amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". In response, a federal judge ordered that either the state should retain doctors to sedate the condemned man, or carry out the death penalty using an overdose of sedatives. The state opted for the first option, and hired two anesthesiologists to sedate Morales.

At the last minute, the doctors refused to participate, citing ethical concerns. I'm assuming the doctors were considering their Hippocratic oath, and felt that participating in the involuntary death of another human being didn't fall within it's guidelines. Perhaps society as a whole should be held to the same standard.

Now admittedly, I have not always fallen on this side of the issue. In the past (recent past, at that), I was in favor of the death penalty. This was one of the few areas where I differed in philosophy from my fellow Democrats. But after some soul searching and critical thought, I came to the conclusion that I had been wrong all along. Anyone who knows me knows I don't easily admit being wrong. But in this case, I certainly was.

I had always argued that the death penalty was a deterrent. It's not. I had argued that by taking another life, the murderer had forfeited his own. He didn't, he only forfeited his freedom. I had complained that the accused would be taken care of for the rest of their lives at the taxpayer's expense, and this was unjust. Perhaps. But it's also the price you pay to live in a civilized society.

The death penalty is not justice, it's vengeance. Cold, calculated, pre-meditated vengeance. It does nothing to mitigate the crime. It provides no restitution to the family of the victim, or society as a whole. It simply increases the body count.

How can we as a "civilized" nation believe that it is appropriate to punish the most heinous of crimes by committing the same crime ourselves? A state sanctioned murder makes it no less a murder. Not to mention the distinct possibility that we could put innocent people to death. How do you justify that?

It has been often said: "better for one hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be imprisoned", and I agree with that. But even in the case of incarcerating an innocent person, the state can pay restitution to the person for the time they served. How do you pay restitution to a dead man?

There are people out there who say "an eye for an eye". I say, "turn the other cheek". I guess I'm just a New Testament sort of guy.