I apologize for this long post, but I intend on showing how complicated this issue is (I've spent a lot of time on the issue of Capital Punishment), and those who are very close to the issue (family, friends, etc) are usually affected by rage and are very emotional and this interferes with their ability to think logically and rationally. I, for one, do not think people should be killed solely because those citing the justification for said person's death are very emotional.
Yes, in this type of circumstance
But who is to decide in what circumstances it is permissible for the state (whose purpose it can be argued is to protect you against harm from others) to harm you directly itself.
many roles for punishment, deterrence, retribution,
It has not been shown that Capital Punishment is any more of a deterrent than life in prison. I have done studies on this myself for classes. There's no relationship at all between a state that implements capital punishment and the murder rate afterwards (Some argue that a state implementing CP actually raises murder, i.e. "if the state has legitimate reason to kill a person, then why don't I"). The Southern U.S. has the highest rate of CP in the U.S., but it also has the highest murder rate per capita. Others argue that most murders are committed out of rage, not out of rational thought. So the thought of deterrence "If I do X, then I automatically get Y" never crosses their mind.
In regards to retribution. CP would only be an "eye for an eye" punishment in regards to murder. But doesn't the U.S. put rapists and kidnappers and traitors on death row? How is that "eye for an eye"? If you really agree to that, you would be advocating that the Government should implement rape and only rape for convicted rapists. Also, some say that CP cannot be an "eye for an eye" because CP is not only death, but "torture until death" and this goes beyond what the accused did (assuming the accused murdered) (for more info on this last point, see "Against the Death Penalty" by Jeffrey Reiman)
There's a quote regarding retribution that I think fits. Nobel Laureate Albert Camus wrote, "For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life"
human rights ends when a person batantly and maliciously loads his weapons, puts them in his vehicles, drives to a place of business and opens fire on innocent people.
You're making a nonempirical claim that needs reasons to back it up. Some people argue that human rights are inviolable (right to life for example). Doesn't the Declaration say that all men have certain inalienable rights including the right to life? That means the state does not have power to take away life (the reality of how this statement has been carried out is not relevant to the definition of the statement). Some argue that by mere fact of being humans we have certain dignities and rights that cannot be taken away by other humans.
The problems with todays society in America is that our government and bleeding heart crybaby fuckheads have give the criminals more rights than the victims and their families. Once a person is convicted of a crime like this, death should be swift, not 20+ years of paperwork and bullshit.
The problem is with many in todays society think that it is the "rights of the criminals" that is faulty. But consider all the other points before the sentencing of a convicted criminal. One half to two thirds of all crimes are not reported. Police have discretion on whether to arrest or not. 88-93 percent of crimes do not produce arrest. Prosecution has discretion and may not prosecute due to overcrowded system. Years on bail awaiting trial. Plea bargaining might come into play, over 75 percent of convictions result in this manner, then probation or the sentence might be suspended. THEN we get to the trial. The idea that "the system is fucked up because the defendant has too many rights" overlooks this huge line of exit points that occur before the defendant is even sentenced.
