In theory at least I've got nothing against hanging somebody like Manson, Dennis Rader, Paul Bernardo, John Mohammed...
Here's the problem: I'd want several changes to the system before I could feel good about capital punishment anymore.
1. Guilt should be beyond any doubt whatsoever; the usual criteria of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't cut it for hanging somebody.
2. The person in question must represent a continuing threat to society should he ever escape or otherwise get loose. The "bird man" of Alcatraz would not qualify, John Mohammed clearly would.
3. I'd want all career/money incentives for convicting people of crimes gone which would mean scrapping the present "adversarial" system of justice in favor of something like the French "inquisitorial" system in which the common objective of all parties involved was a determination of facts.
4. I'd want there to be no societal benefit to keeping the person alive. Cases in which this criteria would prevent hanging somebody would include "Son of Sam" who we probably should want to study more than hang, or Timothy McVeigh who clearly knew more than the public ever was allowed to hear.
Given all of that I could feel very good about hanging Charles Manson, John Muhammed, or Paul Bernardo, but that's about what it would take.
In fact in a totally rational world the job of District Attorney as it is known in America would not exist. NOBODY should ever have any sort of a career or money incentive for sending people to prison, much less for executing people. The job of District Attorney in America seems to involve almost limitless power and very little resembling accountability and granted there is no shortage of good people who hold the job, the combination has to attract the wrong kinds of people as well.
They expected DNA testing to eliminate the prime suspect in felony cases in something like one or two percent of cases and many people were in states of shock when that number came back more like 33 or 35%. That translates into some fabulous number of people sitting around in prisons for stuff they don't know anything at all about since the prime suspect in a felony case usually goes to prison. Moreover, in a state like Texas which executes a hundred people a year or thereaboputs, it is, that has to translate into innocent people being executed on a fairly regular basis.
There were a total of 37 convicts executed in the U.S. in 2008, 18 of them in Texas, not a hundred.
It is virtually impossible for a normal human being to have zero doubt about guilt in the vast majority of cases. Your bar is unreasonably high.
Capital punishment isn’t about “feel good” or feeling bad. It’s a penalty for certain crimes. Let’s leave the “feel good” to the liberals.
The french govt lawyers have a “money incentive”. They get paid a salary.
On your point 2. It is almost impossible to tell if a person will be a “continuing threat to society” or not. We must go on what they have done, not on wishful thinking about what they are going to do in the future.
Who do you plan on using to prosecute people for criminal behavior? The neighbors?
This is simply a physical impossibility. EVERY piece of evidence, including DNA, has "some" margin of error. That margin may be tiny, but it is certainly NOT (and can never be) "zero". In the real world, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the only possible approach.
“Moreover, in a state like Texas which executes a hundred people a year or thereaboputs, it is, that has to translate into innocent people being executed on a fairly regular basis.”
You just “might” want to check your facts.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/annual.htm
“1. Guilt should be beyond any doubt whatsoever; the usual criteria of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” doesn't cut it for hanging somebody.”
Without any doubt whatsoever, babies in the womb have committed no crimes. If you believe point #1 you surely must be fighting to save the unborn. If not you have no right to use it.
“2. The person in question must represent a continuing threat to society should he ever escape or otherwise get loose. The “bird man” of Alcatraz would not qualify, John Mohammed clearly would.”
If someone kills you and you alone and will never harm another they should still be put to death. Point #2 is illogical.
“3. I'd want all career/money incentives for convicting people of crimes gone which would mean scrapping the present “adversarial” system of justice in favor of something like the French “inquisitorial” system in which the common objective of all parties involved was a determination of facts.”
I find it utterly amazing you didn't use defense attorneys as an example. In the OJ case they found OJ’s blood at the murder scene. They found Ron's, Nicole's and OJ’s blood in OJ’s Ford Bronco. They also found a bloody glove at OJ’s estate. OJ took a bag of money and ran from the police. Yet clever defense attorneys helped him go free and the jury felt the evidence didn't cause them to be “without any doubt whatsoever” to use your own term.
“4. I'd want there to be no societal benefit to keeping the person alive. Cases in which this criteria would prevent hanging somebody would include “Son of Sam” who we probably should want to study more than hang, or Timothy McVeigh who clearly knew more than the public ever was allowed to hear.”
Anyone can murder. Therefore, this point is the most ridiculous of all. If some man tortures you for three weeks and then finally kills you but because has an interesting psychological makeup you want us to keep him alive? Have a little mercy on us good guys as well as a little common sense.
Even God commanded that we should put murderers to death. Are you wiser than Him? Some foolish people think that Christ removed capital punishment because of the woman caught in adultery. That is not the case. The religious leaders of that day sought to prove that Jesus the commoner did not know Mosaic law. The law concerning adultery states that you will put both the man and the woman to death. A woman can not commit adultery by herself. It was an illegal trial. Furthermore, the crime had to be witnessed by at least two people and that one of those witnesses had to throw the first stone. Christ, knowing that they had seen the woman's nakedness but had let the man go, basically said “ok mister, you watched this...are you innocent?” You see it was a story about how the leaders themselves had broken the law to trick Christ. God still expects us to impose the death penalty.