Brownback's strange death penalty position

I don't know how we're supposed to parse Senator Sam Brownback's incoherent position on the death penalty (Hotline subscription required):

On the death penalty, Brownback called it "something that I've changed on in my career in public life" and now believes that it should be used only when "society can no longer protect itself from the perpetrator" such as, for example, the case of Osama bin Laden. Brownback: "It is tough for us to teach a culture of life and still use this tool of death." However, he added that this is not a policy point which he plans to push "aggressively" (Hotline reporting, 4/25).

What does it mean to use the death penalty only when "society can no longer protect itself from the perpetrator"? By definition, we can only execute perpetrators who we've already caught, which means that we're protected if they're given a life sentence.

Comments

[SomeCallMeTim]

There are certain perpetrators, like the Hulk, who we have good reason to believe we cannot keep locked away. People who are serious about policy have to prepare for the most unlikely events. Like an invasion by Canada. Or a rampaging Hulk.

[Lettuce]

I was going to say that life in prison, or at least some very long stretch, seems to be working in Wisconsin, and has since the 1830s...

But I really hadn't considered The Hulk.

Good point.

[Mitt Report]

Great post! I am sharing it at the .

[Ben]

Though I'm not sure if this is what Brownback met, there are people who we're not protected from even when they are in prison. Some prison gangs, like the Aryan Brotherhood, continue to operate when the leaders are in jail and even in solitary confinement. When I read about that, it was the first time I really reconsidered my position on the death penalty... since even supermax prisons weren't preventing leaders of the Aryan Brotherhood and other prison gangs from ordering murders. So maybe I agree with Sam Brownback.