the application of the death penalty) even though he may wellndeserve to suffer terribly for his crimes.nWhat “good” did the execution of the serial killer TednBundy do? We know that such penalties do not deter, so thisnwas not the “good.” Did it “satisfy” justice? But what kind ofnjustice is it that feeds on the killing of individuals? Is itngood to feel satisfied after killing someone, even though thenperson deserved it? I do not argue that the motives for killingnare identical,, but I do insist that there are psychological elementsnof both acts that are similar. The most obvious similaritynis that both killings are intentional. I contend that therenis no positive aspect in the infliction of pain or suffering on annindividual, even when it is justified. We need to work hard,ntherefore, to turn this act of violence into something that isnpositive. The mere taking away of the murderer’s life does notnfulfill this need.nThe answer lies in the very common complaint of murderersnon death row. They announce that they are “sorry” for whatnthey did (though it’s often hard to believe them), but add, whatncan they do? Their victims are dead, they say, and they can’tnbring them back to life. True enough. But if we pause for anmoment, we see the answer: while they cannot bring their victimsnback to life, they can save the life (and perhaps lives) ofnothers. They could donate their body parts. In this way, onenexecuted criminal’s body could possibly save several lives. Inwould go so far as to say that the condemned murderer shouldnbe made to give up his body organs. The social and moral goodncould be enhanced tremendously by this practice.nThere is a critical shortage of donor organs. As of 1987, fornexample, there were over 13,000 individuals waiting for organsnof one kind or another, and the number is closer to 20,000 today.nThe U.S. government spent $300,000 in 1990 on Medicare assistancenfor each of the 60,000 Americans who require kidney dialysis.nThus, each executed murderer is “worth” at least $600,000njust for the two kidneys alone. In 1987 there were morenthan 12,000 individuals waiting for kidney transplants, and onlynsome 2,500 donors. A liver transplant costs about $150,000.nThe need, therefore, is critical.nThe fantastic service that executed murderers could providenInThomasf^^^ntransactionn22/CHRONICLESnby saving lives is tremendous. While their suffering maynnot make up for the specific suffering and loss of the particularnvictim, the victim’s family and society as well can atnleast take comfort in the fact that two tenible deeds—the murdernand the execution—have been turned at least to a trulynpositive outcome: saving lives and improving the quality of lifenof many others. This is true community service, while at thensame time preserving the punitive element of the punishment.nThere are, of course, many obvious objections to this idea.nI anticipate, for example, complaints that the govemment willnexecute more murderers in order to obtain more body parts.nThis is indeed a cynical view of government. It should be possiblento introduce legislative safeguards to fend off this pitfall,nif it is a pitfall. There may also be some concern about an individualnliving with a serial murderer’s heart or other body part.nPatients receiving such organs would need to be counseled carefully.nWliether it should even be known from whom the organsncame is a question that would need to be addressed. Othersnmight complain of a slippery slope, since some organs, such asnkidneys, could be extracted from prisoners without killing them.nWhy not trade off years in prison for donating a kidney?nAnd could an inmate “freely volunteer” parts of his body in ordernto get out of prison? For the moment, we should begin onlynwith executed prisoners, and if this works, then look to its extensionnin other settings.nWhen I advocated corporal punishment for most offendersnsome nine years ago, I thought that the enormous cost ofnusing prisons for punishment would sooner or later bringnthe system down. The massive increase in the use of prisonsnsince that time has so far proven me wrong. The problem ofnpunishment is not motivated or limited by fiscal concerns.nRather, it is a problem of moral psychology, as I have arguednin this essay. We must try hard to solve this distinctly late-20thcenturynproblem of punishment by beginning to acknowledgenthe deep-seated shame we have about punishing. We shouldnnot be ashamed to use punishment in order to save lives. Inndoing so, we may turn not only the bad of the offender intongood, but also the bad of the punishment process itself intonsomething good. nLearned, thoughtful, and superblynwritten ^ A -Robert NisbetnNATIONAL REVIEWn”In this probing and thoughful book, ThomasnFleming has begun to address the principalnchallenge to our society and polity.”n-Elizabeth Fox-GenovesenCHRONICLESn”A thoughtful conservative of the old school.n… Progressives and radicals could benefitnfrom grappling with Fleming’s intellectuallynstimulating presentation.”nTHE PROGRESSIVEnISBN: 0-88738-189-8 (cloth) 276 pp. $32.95nMajor credit cards accepted. Call (201) 932-2280nSend prepaid orders to:nW^^ transaction publishersnI r* I Department FLn^ •! Rutgers-The State Universityntransaction NeW BrUOSWiCk, N.J. 08903nnn