What's the point of reviving someone, just so you can execute them?

California executes oldest condemned inmate - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

This is a little off-topic for this blog, but I don't know what to think about it.

Apparently a blind, deaf, wheelchair-ridden 76-year-old was executed Tuesday in California. He was on death row because he had murdered his then-teenage son's 17-year-old girlfriend for fear that she would tell police about a grocery store robbery.

That's pretty damn cold.

Then, to make matters worse, he arranged for the killing of three witnesses to the first crime.

That's pretty damn heinous.

So, this is the thing. I don't have any problem with executing somebody for crimes of that nature. Obviously, he's extremely dangerous and can't be allowed to ever re-enter society.

However, the story also says that he had a heart attack in September, and was revived so he could be returned to death row.

Now, what was the purpose of that? The old coot nearly died in September, but was revived - at taxpayer expense - only to be executed -also at taxpayer expense - a few months later? Why didn't they just let him die of the heart attack, and save taxpayers a lot of money?

I'm also not sure of the point in executing a 76-year-old who's blind, deaf, and unable to walk. Isn't it important that the person know they're being executed? Why does it matter whether he's executed, or dies of a heart attack? The idea was just for him to be dead .... right?

It all just seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars to me. If somebody is on death row and has a heart attack, to revive them just so you can kill them sounds a little too much like premeditated murder to me. While I feel he deserved to die for his crimes, I also know there's a fine line between justice and revenge, when it comes to the death penalty. It is not for the state to exact revenge, but in this case it sounds like that's exactly what they did.

So I find this disturbing, in an unusual way.