I'm actually a little appalled at all the smiling faces surrounding Scott Peterson's death sentence. Yes, it was a terrible thing he did, but I strangely empathize with him when the jury damned him for being so stoic and silent. I'm not inside his head, nor do I want to condone his actions, but you can't say that because a man is silent that he's remorseless. Thus, you can't punish a man for your interpretations of his thoughts. I believe that the human mind is more complex than that.

Sure, he was guilty, but is it okay to punish blood lust with blood lust?

There are thousands out there that wish to see him dead, absolutely wish it to the bottoms of their hearts, and they themselves will drop the gas pellet if offered the opportunity. This constitutes justice? Peterson's crime was that he chose to violate a social contract, respecting the right of Laci to live. (I don't want to get into the subtleties of how Conner fits into this; in personal injury law, one could bring litigation to try and recoup lost "future" wages. Money now to replace money that would have been gained. Well Conner is dead, Mr. Grantski. Exactly how do you wish expect to "recoup" the loss of your grandchild?)

But why is it that the punishment doled out for that violating that contract appears to also violate that contract?

In Nozick's book, he describes a very minimal state as having a monopoly over the use of force in order to mediate and enforce social and actual contracts. I'm still very early in the book; it's basically a textbook on socio-political philosophy. But what I'm hoping to learn is whether the state (as a representative of its clients that pay, via taxes or other collection agency, to keep it intact) is subject to the same laws as the clients themselves. Is there a point at which a group of individuals possess powers that are nonexistent in any of a single individual in the group? For example, I'm not allowed to censor you, but is the government allowed to do so?

I imagine that the answer is in saying that the government is acting on behalf of its citizens, and while some citizens prefer a death sentence and some prefer life imprisonment, the state in this case is choosing on the side of capital punishment, and enforcing that decision, in the same way that the government mediates and enforces other contracts.

But the question now is, why is it that the government chooses on behalf of citizens who want an action that the citizens themselves don't have the power to do. If the judgment of the court is that Scott Peterson should be put to death, can I just go up to him and kill him?

I'm hoping that Nozick, and any other source that someone else cares to cite, can answer this for me. Until then, I don't like the sentence. A killer is a killer is a killer.