It's okay so long as they don't mutilate you?

Well it appears that that's the standard set out by the, uh, Western Standard's bloggers. In this particular post the author seems upset that Canada is dragging its feet as there is a risk that the accused may face the death penalty. (Bias alert: I unequivocally oppose the death penalty.) Anyway, I suppose this blogger is okay with capital punishment, but then he offers up this tidbit:

It is not like they will be shipping him to China where the possibility exists that his eyeballs will be cut out and sold on the blackmarket.

Oh. So how is it that one blogger gets to decide what is acceptable punishment? I am no friend of the Chinese regime, and I know that it is terrible on so many fronts, but that does not excuse capital punishment. Just because no eyeball-removing is involved, does not make it okay. In fact, the introduction of this grusome (and unreferenced) fact seems to be a ploy. The author's instincts tell him that Canadians won't like his breezy attitude towards capital punishment, so he throws in something that sound far worse by comparison.

Look, killers deserve justice, but the death penalty is deeply flawed and really can't be shown to have any positive effects on society. Just because there is no eye-harvesting going on, does not mean that the practice of capital punishment is not odious.