Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
The state administered death penalty derives its authority from the duty of state to deliver justice. Each crime is deserving of a particular penalty. Lesser crimes a lesser penalty and worse crimes a worse penalty. Is there room for mercy which is by definition to give a penalty that is less than the crime deserves? Yes but in each case of mercy too little punishment is given. Is it better to give too little punishment rather than too much? If recompense means a person pays back what he has stolen then the punishment fits the crime because there is parity between the amount stolen and the amount paid back. Extending that logic an eye for an eye a life for a life. That is a timeless principle that most of the world accepts. To punish the life taker with a sentence any less than his own life is mercy and is also a diminishment of justice. The crime deserves death and anything less is not justice. I fully back the concept that certain crimes are deserving of death. It is both logical and god given. It is also true that the state has the authority to rightly administer the death penalty. If that state is however not delivering it rightly then it loses its authority to give that sentence. If the state chooses to be merciful and can do so without sacrificing justice that is a good path. This is a grave power to give to the state especially considering that overy state ever to have existed on the planet has abused it s various powers at one time or another. There must be checks, balances, and especially limits on that power. If the state is to have the authority to give the death penalty then it must be a state of limited power. If the state does not have the authority to give the death sentence then it is by definition a state of limited power. Anyone who is against the death penalty even if only in certain circumstances is making the claim that states must be limited in their powers. We may disagree just how limited that state must be but at least we have begun with some common ground.
I propose to you all that all states abuse all power eventually and all states must have limits placed on them balanced against the powers that are given to it. Those limits must be across the board and applied to every power. A constitution is the best way to codify those limits. The united states has been overstepping its powers for a long time now in so many ways it would be hard to calculate. The death penalty is the least of our worries but should the state ever get out of control as so many others have done before you can count on the fact that innocent people will be killed.
I propose to you all that all states abuse all power eventually and all states must have limits placed on them balanced against the powers that are given to it. Those limits must be across the board and applied to every power. A constitution is the best way to codify those limits. The united states has been overstepping its powers for a long time now in so many ways it would be hard to calculate. The death penalty is the least of our worries but should the state ever get out of control as so many others have done before you can count on the fact that innocent people will be killed.