I fully admit to being a squish on the death penalty. By that I mean I’m mildly against it, but not absolutely against it or even strongly against it. Similarly, I think there are plenty of times when it is warranted, but not so strongly that it is irrational to be opposed to its use. Even so, I respect why most people on the extremes hold their positions and I don’t think they are irrational for doing so.

My view of the death penalty is this. It is morally acceptable to take a life in defense of life. If someone is attacking you or someone else, you can and maybe should use lethal force to prevent it. If in the middle of the night you hear someone breaking into your car and you go to investigate, taking a weapon is prudent. If the thief comes at you, using the weapon is acceptable.

No legitimate government can have privileges, rights and freedoms not loaned to it by the citizens. Since you cannot give what you do not have, the people cannot give the state the right to kill indiscriminately. Therefore, when it comes to the death penalty, the same rules that apply to an individual apply to the state. Society, through its government, can kill in defense of itself and in defense of others.

For most of human history, locking up a threat forever was not possible. Hanging the bad guy who threatened society was the only sure way to know the bad guy was not going to commit more crime. In many parts of the word this is still true. The cost of holding violent criminals for life is prohibitive so death is not just warranted, it is required.

In modern Western countries like America, we can afford to hold murderers in cages forever. We also have the technology to build prisons in such a way as to ensure that these people never escape. In other words, we can neutralize the threat they pose without resorting to lethal means. When you confront the guy breaking into your car, you don’t get to shoot him if he surrenders.

That’s the theory. Reality is something different. Our prisons are not orderly places where the safekeeping of criminals is the top priority. They are warehouses where the criminals largely run the facilities. Crime inside the prisons is worse than even the nastiest American ghetto. The strong prey on the weak and in the most monstrous of ways.

Worse yet, we have lunatics on the bench who enjoy releasing murderers into society for no other reason than to cause mayhem. Demetrius Blackwell, the thug who murdered a NYC cop last week, was repeatedly released into the wild, despite living a life of crime. The death penalty is the only break on this and the only way to know for sure that the threat is neutralized.

Into the mix goes the fact we have mistakenly convicted men of capital crimes, only to release them much later after the wrong was righted by forces outside the normal criminal procedures. If you execute someone, there’s no righting that wrong at a later date. This is, of course, an unassailable argument in the general sense, but no human system will ever be perfect. The question is whether society can accept the imperfections.

Similarly, there is the charge that the death penalty is barbaric and cruel. The ways in which we kill people are poison gas, injected poisons and high voltage. None of them sound all that pleasant, but no one can really know. Maybe Old Sparky is a great way to go out. I do think the walk to the death chamber and the long wait must be horrible, but murderers are not introspective men so I can’t really say for sure.

The Dzhokhar Tsarnaev case is a good example of how this works. For insisting on spelling his name like an eye chart, death is probably warranted, but that’s not why he was sentenced to death. He plotted and executed the bombings of the Boston Marathon. There’s no doubt he is guilty as he admitted to his role during and after the crime. The physical evidence and witness evidence all point to his guilt.

For those in favor of the death penalty on retributive grounds, this is an easy one. The crimes were not just against citizens, but against society. This is not a man who will ever not pose the threat to every living thing around him and the only way to make sure he is not a threat is to kill him.  In most times and places, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would be dead by now.

If you are against the death penalty it’s much tougher. There’s no question that he is guilty and happy to have done the crimes. The only possible way he could later be found to have not committed these crimes involves the supernatural. Otherwise, he could very well be the most guilty man alive today. Just in case, his verdict will have many reviews before his execution.

That leaves cruelty, but what is more cruel than locking a man in a cage for fifty years? Federal prison is no walk in the park. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will spend the better part of the next decade being raped by black men. If he lives through it, he will live in fear of assassination until his fears are realized. Would you choose that life or death?

Of course, if you are in favor of the death penalty only for retributive reasons, then life in prison is the better choice, but there are limits. Retribution is a necessary part of human society, but it does not have to be gratuitous. Sticking a needle in this guy’s arm is enough to sate the public desire for retribution. There’s no need for torture.