If we are going to use execution as the penalty for a whole host of crimes what principle would we use to limit the use?
Well I have a real problem with those laws if they exist, and the people in those states should work on getting them repealed, because that is nuts.
I think you are conflating government-sanctioned execution with homeowners killing people. I own guns, but if I lived in Louisiana, I would never consider shooting a drunk high school kid who stepped on my porch. I would step out with the gun and ask them to leave, however. Just because I think that the states should be executing murderers, rapists and child molesters does not mean that I think we should be using execution as the penalty for a whole host of crimes.
I gave you three crimes in which I think execution is appropriate -- murder, rape, and child molesters. I think people who drive drunk or drugged and kill someone should get life in prison. Talk about a deterrent. 5 years ago, on a nearby lake, this kid driving a boat while drunk crashed into a pier, killing one of his passengers. His BAC was like .14 at the time. He got 2-6 years in prison, and ended up serving 3 and a half. Meanwhile, this kid convicted of possessing 2 ounces of cocaine got 5 years in prison. How is that justice? That's what I'm talking about when I refer to the need for proportionality in sentencing.
Violent crimes should be punished severely. Crimes committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs should be punished severely. Financial crimes should involve restitution first and foremost, and if restitution is not available, then jail is also appropriate. The crimes I'm referring to above are what I consider to be malum in se offenses -- these are offenses that involve conduct evil in and of themselves. Drug possession is a malum prohibitum offense, and involves conduct that is unlawful only because the legislature has chosen to make it so.