It's hard. I don't think I have a stance on the issue. As it stands, justice needs to be done to wrongdoers, but that word in and of itself opens up a myriad of new, can-of-worm kind of questions.
Whose justice?
What kind of justice?
How do you define "justice"?
Who gets to define justice? Just the fact that there's a discussion about capital punishment on an anime forum proves that while a deed like murder is generally perceived as "wrong" or "bad," there's a plethora of different
extents that people argue to which redress needs to be sought.
There are a number of reasons why I consider it hard to pick a stance on this. One such reason is that I have problems with the justifications deployed
on both sides of the debate. That is, when someone advocates
either for or against capital punishment, I sometimes consider the rationale sketchy at best. The most common example, of course, is the justification of death for murderers because "life is sacred" or words to that effect. The contradiction inherent in this reasoning is worse than it sounds at face value: let's assume that the life of a murder victim is sacred, but the life of a murderer is not. Thus a governing body administers 'justice' by ending the life of murderers.
Now, humans are humans, and when they administer death to other human beings, they kill them with humanly means. They don't call upon tidal waves or an earthquake or meteors to fall from the sky. So the people appointed as executioners
kill. To close relatives or the loved ones of the executed murderers, or people who simply think they're innocent, an execution is nonetheless a
murder. There's no difference beyond semantic complexities. To such people, 'justice' would be to deliver death to the executioners, as to them the executed murderers are
victims. And punishing the executioners is a deed that needs to be done by another set of executioners, who themselves will kill. To those who disagree with the execution of the executioners, this is essentially a murder, and 'justice' to them means administering death to the new executioners who executed the previous executioners.
This kind of justification is a Möbius strip.
On the other hand, legal systems all around the world are rife with double standards. In my view, capital punishments are often one such defect. Let's say a disturbed psychopath murders the most innocent victim you could ever think of in the most repugnant way you could ever imagine―the kind of case which would have people raise their proverbial torches and pitchforks while yelling "if law enforcement isn't going to execute him,
we will," the kind that might tickle the strings of even the most ardent anti-capital punishment advocates. Okay, he committed unfathomable cruelty to a perfectly innocent individual, but to put things into perspective, he victimised and murdered
one individual. Now, turn around to the most extravagant part of society, and what do you see?
That depends on who you are. Are you running for office? They may be "contributors." Do you own a company that manufactures private jet planes or yachts? They may be your "best customers." Do you practise law? They may be your "cash cows." Are you a civil rights/liberties activist? They may be "the enemy." Are you a scientist who needs to publish your research on exclusive journals to gain recognition from your fellow academics? They may be "leeches." Are you a worker earning a minimum wage at the less fortunate part of society? They may be "torturers." Are you―I apologise for the analogy―suffering from serious but curable illness but unable to afford the grossly inflated prices for the medication you need? Would you consider them "murderers"?
(I'm not going to be too wordy on the concrete examples, but consider incidents such as the
British Petroleum oil spill, the decades-long litigation between
Chevron and Ecuador, the
Great Recession, the act by giant pharmaceutical companies to
delay generics from entering the market,
"evergreening" strategies deployed by Big Pharma to keep patents from expiring and allow them to excessively inflate prices for years to come, and the general
ridiculous pricing on medications.)
Maybe the people within the upper echelons responsible for such disasters―yes, I consider them disasters, no matter what euphemisms like "innovation" and "fairness" are used to play down the impact on society―aren't going around killing people. And it's going to be hard, if not impossible, to link actual deaths to such faults. And maybe the people affected don't die right away, not as fast as a knife stab or a gun shot would've caused. But on the long run, and on such massive scales? Now, quite reasonably, legal systems might be opposed to administering capital punishment to such deeds, especially if it's unproven―not that it's likely provable―that what's been done resulted in actual deaths. Nor am I advocating for capital punishment in this context (if anything, I may be more inclined to advocate against it, as suggested in my previous sentences).
This is why I can't decide whether I'm for or against capital punishment. I'd argue that I advocate for it under certain circumstances and against it under other circumstances, but that'd be because
I think this deed deserves death and this one doesn't. And people are going to disagree. This is another problem I see with such punishments―the people who administer the legal system may be lawfully elected representatives, and people may trust them to deliver this verdict to this convict and that verdict to that convict, but when it concerns human life, everyone is ultimately an equal human being who does not―
should not―have a say on who should die and why.
1) People won't know their laws (since you'd be surprised at the number of individuals who doesn't know what "Miranda Warning" is)
You might also be surprised at how some law enforcement officers have, in some recent legal cases, neglected to read the Miranda Rights of the people they have in custody. As valid as your cynicism is, there's also the consideration about how it feels to be under custody, or to simply be surrounded by a bunch of armed people who can kill or make you suffer financially and physically (and probably get away with it). Fifth or no Fifth, Miranda or no Miranda, many people also consider themselves to be just smart enough to fast-talk themselves (instead of shutting up) out of a dreadful situation, when in truth the LEOs often already know the answer to the questions they're asking. Oh, lying or giving inaccurate answers, by the way, is a
felony.
So, yes, not knowing Miranda and other rights under the Fifth as a US citizen is bad. However, with the legal system designed to lump as many charges as possible on a convict (including that felony charge as the icing on top of the cake) instead of seeking the most proportionate redress, I wouldn't put all the blame on the people's general indifference to or lack of knowledge of the law. Oh, before I forget, you do know the
"public safety" exception to Miranda Rights, oui? With the current legal and political climate, those two words right there reek of nothing but potential for abuse and overreach. I wouldn't be surprised if I started hearing about more legal cases where LEOs neglect to read Miranda Rights to the people they have in custody.
My opinion is that the death penalty should only be reserved for mentally competent adults who killed with the intention of killing.
This may open yet another can of worms. Humans aren't omniscient beings able to peer into the minds of others, and as such
intent can be a very hard thing to prove or deny. As it stands, intent or lack thereof can influence the extent of punishment when you're already a convict, but when it ultimately decides whether you get to live or die at the hands of the law, I'm inclined to oppose the notion. It's not hard to imagine that overzealous prosecutors or powerful people seeking to pile charges on you will come up with multiple excuses to convince the court of your intent because you don't toe the line or they have political motives for doing so.
