In another life, I did some translation for a living. I liked it. My attitude toward it was like that of Andrew toward lawyering in Philadelphia:

JOE: Are you a good lawyer?
ANDREW: I’m an excellent lawyer.
JOE: What makes you an excellent lawyer?
ANDREW: I love the law. I know the law. I excel at practicing it. It’s the only thing I’ve ever wanted to do.
JOE: What do you love about it?
ANDREW: Well… many things. But I think the thing I love the most, is that every once in a while, not that often, but occasionally… you get to be part of justice being done. It’s really quite a thrill when that happens. (Philadelphia movie script)

Every once in a while, not that often, but occasionally… I want to translate things to share my thinking and feelings, like this discussion on death penalty between a blogger in Korea (as a father) and his sons:

Father: Death penalty means taking someone else’s life. That’s why there are so many countries against it. Suppose you, or your family member faces a death penalty. It would be very sad, and difficult to go through even if you have committed a crime, wouldn’t it?
Worse, someone has to do the dirty work. It is a law enforcement, but at the same time it’s doing a killing for a living, like executioners long time ago. Is it right to kill people for justice?
(After thinking for a while)
Son I: Well, what about asking another condemned criminal to do the work? He’s going to die anyway, isn’t he?
Fater: What about the last person facing death penalty?
Even if he’s condemned, he still got his human rights. You can’t ask another person to commit a crime.
Son II: What then about starving him to death?
Father: If you have to take someone’s life, you should at least have the respect to take it at once.
You commit killing by not giving food. (translation by me)

It’s hillarious to read, like most discussion with kids is. Although I kind of feel sad to feel funny about a discussion on such a serious subject. Still, I’d like to add: If you starve someone to death, it’s not only you who have committed a crime. By negligence, everybody has contributed to the killing. And, the strongest argument against death penalty, I think, goes beyond technicality or logistics issue. It’s more philosophical, like death penalty should be banned because of human fallibility (that people tend to make errors) and that power given to a man (or an institution run by a man) should be restricted. It has such a finality. You can’t undo it.