Several concerns about capital punishment were raised on different fronts about three weeks apart recently. Two developments went to the heart of the death penalty; the other addressed a peripheral issue.

In mid-December, the New Jersey legislature abolished capital punishment, and the legislation was signed into law by Gov. Jon Corzine on Dec. 17. The action was significant in that New Jersey became the first state to abolish the death penalty since it was reinstated in the United States in 1976 after a three-year suspension.

“New Jersey is truly evolving,” Corzine said of his state’s action. He said a fundamental argument against the death penalty is for society to “determine if its endorsement of violence begets violence, and if violence undermines our commitment to the sanctity of human life.”

Bishop John M. Smith of Trenton, N. J., who testified before legislators in support of the abolition, said lawmakers showed “a great deal of courage” to take an unpopular stand against the death penalty. He expressed the hope that this would encourage legislators in other states to do the same.

A day after Corzine signed the ban into law the United Nations General Assembly, in a 104-54 vote, approved a non-binding resolution calling for a moratorium on executions “with the view of abolishing the death penalty.” There is “no conclusive evidence of the death penalty’s deterrent value” and “any miscarriage or failure of justice in the death penalty’s implementation is irreversible and irreparable,” the resolution said.

The U.N. action was hailed as “a very positive event” and a “sign of hope” by the Vatican. “It shows that despite the persistence of so much violence in the world, there is a growing awareness in the human family of the value of life, of the dignity of every person and the concept of nonvindictive punishment,” said Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman.

While both these actions challenged the basic validity of capital punishment, the U.S. Supreme Court debated a peripheral issue: the method of execution. On Jan. 7 the court heard oral arguments in a case from Kentucky contesting the constitutionality of lethal injection in executions. At issue was the three-drug protocol used in Kentucky and most other states for executions by lethal injection.

A decision is expected before the court’s term ends in July, but how the justices will rule is anyone’s guess. They raised a number of questions during oral arguments, and several justices even suggested sending the case back to lower courts to consider how the current method of lethal injection compares to other methods.

While not diminishing the importance of the constitutionality of a method of lethal injection, this question is secondary to the issues faced by New Jersey and the U.N. resolution. Moreover, it’s kind of surreal to debate what is the most effective, most constitutional or most acceptable way to kill someone when the real issue is the act of killing itself.

Most states have adopted lethal injection as the execution method of choice because it is thought to be “more humane” than other methods, such as electrocution, the gas chamber or hanging. The thinking is that if we’re going to have the death penalty, it should be carried out in the “most humane” way possible.

This argument, however, begs the question: Is there any humane way to take a human life? Is there any way to sanitize the killing process to make it acceptable or civilized? Why must we have state-sanctioned killing in the first place? Is this morally acceptable public policy when non-violent ways of punishment and protecting society are available?

New Jersey considered the right questions in passing legislation to abolish capital punishment and to substitute in its place life in prison without parole. There’s no longer any need to address the “best” method of execution, because the central issue has been faced.

Kentucky should follow New Jersey’s lead. Legislation (House Bill 260) has been filed in the 2008 Kentucky legislature to do what New Jersey did. Such legislation has been filed here in previous years but has not been considered in committee.

Now is the time to address it. It’s certainly time better spent than exploring the most effective and “humane” ways of execution.