pug, I would agree - it is an issue of timing. The request was that since the state of Texas had not followed the treaty agreed to by the US government before starting the legal process, the process should begin again, with all of the rules being followed. That is no different from what is required by any court in this nation when our own legal rules are not followed. Why should it have been any different simply because the US or a US state did not author the Vienna Convention? We did after all promise to abide by it. Since when do we judge our own conduct by the conduct of others? Now that is a slippery slope.

As for the use of the death penalty in general, I think it is extremely simplistic to say one executed "got what he deserved." You know absolutely nothing about this person, his potential for change and contribution, his level of culpability in the offenses, and as it is my guess you have never witnessed an execution, you have no idea the brutality entailed, irrespective of the method used. Another human being - one of us - died. That did not bring back his victim, it did not offer any long-term comfort to the victim's family, it left another family of victims to grieve the loss of their child, and all without the benefit of having done what we as a nation promised we would do. Exactly when is it ok to go back on your word? As long as the ends justifies the means? As I stated initially, a sad commentary all around...

I can never remember which is better . . . safe? . . . or sorry?