Maybe someone can explain Howard Dean's incomprehensible position on the death penalty. He and John Kerry apparently think only child murderers, cop-killers and (now) terrorists should be eligible for the death penalty. I understand that crimes that target children are particularly heinous, but how's the rest of that work?

This position is liberal straddling at its worst, and will be a disaster should Dean or Kerry become the Democratic nominee. After all, how does one justify stricter punishment for killing a cop than, say, a schoolteacher, marine, firefighter or paramedic? What makes the killing of one adult worse than the killing of another? The position is indefensible.

I wish these candidates would grow some cajones and take a principled stand on the issue. Either oppose the death penalty altogether or support it for the crime of murder. In any case, don't start dividing people into classes because a public furor makes it politically expedient (Polly Klass, 9/11, etc.).

My position? Those who intentionally kill others, even in crimes of passion, have given up their own right to life. Period. See? It's that easy.