with that kind of authority? Hell, no, no matter how much of a threat to society a person may (apparently) pose. The state has too many ways of eliminating their enemies in paractice; the idea of politicians having a legally instituted means of doing soat their disposal is terrifying.
Also, while I personally feel that there are times it is justified (for the sake of public safety, not for punitive or vengeful reasons), I don't think that the risk - a very high one, from the government's own estimates - of putting an innocent man (innocent of the crime in question, that is) to death is unacceptable. I certainly don't think it deters crime, and there is plenty of reason to think the opposite is true, at least in the US.
I should however point out that in those nations where the death penalty does not exist de jure, there are always ways that both the state and the victim(s) can enforce it de facto, without fear of retribution. Even the most civilized society has and must have some form of vendetta which the authorities are willing to turn a blind eye to. Ironically, the one country where that is often not the case is the one last first world nation which has capital punishment under law - Americans are the only people foolish enough to think that, if something is written in a book of law, that it really means what it says and that no exceptions are to be made. This is one of the odd cases where the US could probably use more of some types of corruption, not less, just to keep the gears of society from seizing up. |
