No doubt you know about the just concluded trial of Steven Hayes in Connecticut. Three years ago, on July 23, 2007, Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky invaded the home of William and Jennifer Petit. After beating William, raping and strangling Jennifer, and molesting one of their two daughters they set the house on fire and ultimately caused the deaths of all but William. It was one of the most violent and horrific crimes in Connecticut history. It is hard to imagine the sheer terror of it all--and one can only empathize with William and his family and friends.

It took the jury just five hours to find Hayes guilty of the crimes. But then, in the penalty phase, they took three full days to determine whether or not he should receive the death penalty. In the end, they voted to do just that.

In an recent television interview on NBC's Today Show with several of the jurors they spoke about the difficulty of sitting through such a graphic trial. It challenged each and every one of them. But even though their deliberations prolonged things, when it came to their decision around the death penalty they were determined to explore the pros and cons and review the facts in as rational a manner as possible. Free of emotion. Everyone was given time to speak his or her mind. They wanted to do they could to make a decision that was within the parameters of the law.

Personally, I do not support the death penalty. But I was impressed with the seriousness with which they took their charge to administer justice in a fair and reasoned manner. And as I have thought about the way they went about their work, I couldn't help but think they were onto something. Wouldn't our public discourse about controversial matters be so much more productive if we allowed all people to speak their minds without fear of ridicule or personally destructive criticism? Wouldn't we have a better chance of coming to compromise on important matters if we worked with the facts and set aside emotionality? Wouldn't the quality of such discussions be improved by giving them the time they deserve instead of being satisfied with sound-bites? And while I may not agree with their decision, I can't help but admire the jury's approach. It would serve us well to follow their example.

In fact, maybe we could start by discussing capital punishment itself in such a manner. It is, after all, a matter of life and death. Doesn't that deserve our very best?