In your 11/1 Reader column [Hot Type] you write that some readers “might be wondering where the Tribune gets off, posturing in public about the ethical principles that guide it.” When it comes to the editorial board’s ethics regarding capital punishment, I’m still wondering about two 1999 editorials acknowledging that innocents will inevitably be executed on occasion, regardless of whatever safeguards are in place (“No human decision-making process can ever be foolproof”). Since the Tribune supports the death penalty anyway, doesn’t this mean that they’re openly advocating killing the innocent? And isn’t killing the innocent what capital punishment is supposed to punish in the first place?
So it seems that the editorial board members deserve to die by their own professed principles. Such is the rhetorical degeneracy of Public Intellectual Space when the willingness of public voices to pander to the worst in human nature knoweth no limit.