>I can somewhat connect with you on this. I concur that the war on drugs is immoral and retarded. I do however, believe that the death penalty should be legal across the board, and should be appertained to underage rapists. Those people deserve a special place in hell.
So as you may recall from my DDO days, I believe the death penalty should be abolished for all cases. The salient question isn't "what does a person who has engaged in [ (x) type of criminal behavior ] deserve?" Rather, the question is "what is appropriate for government to do in defense of the society?" If we begin from the proposition that all men are created equally, and that groups of men can't have more rights than individuals... then what right does a government (i.e., group of men) have to take life, if no man individually ever had that right?
The obvious answer is none, so the government shouldn't be killing people for crimes.
It turns out as well that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime, may actually make crime rates worse, undermines confidence in the judicial system among groups of people most likely to commit crimes, and is applied in profoundly racially disproportionate ways. Further, it also turns out that probably about 1/5 of all executions (conservative estimate) in the United States alone have been of innocent people for myriad reasons (faulty evidence, mistaken memories, outright lies, and the list goes on).
Procedural failings alone should be independently sufficient for people to reach the conclusion that "killing people for crimes isn't something the government really ought to be doing".
But, the story gets even darker when you start to apply the death penalty to situations like drug trafficking (Trump's stupid idea) or rape. We have to begin from the obvious position that not all crimes are equally bad; thus, some crimes are worse than others. Ok. So, now given that some crimes are worse than others, how do we rank order them from worst to least worst?
Traffic and most drug violations probably fall into the category of "least worst". The intentional killing of another person with malicious intent (or for those lawyers here, malice aforethoght) is probably the worst there is. Now, we've got to make the additional decision of whether rape is as bad as murder, or less bad. It's obviously less bad than murder. A raped victim still is alive, despite whatever post-occurrence trauma they may experience. But, a person who has been successfully murdered is, as the term implies, quite dead. So, murder is worse than rape.
Ok. Having decided that murder is worse than rape, now we've got to decide "given that murder is worse than rape, can we as a society treat those crimes the same?"
Maybe. Maybe someone who rapes someone else deserves to be executed. Fair enough, but that's not the salient inquiry. What a person "deserves" is not the same thing as "what society CAN DO TO THEM" in response to some particular crime or set of crimes. Lets explore this further. Suppose we have the same penalty for rape and murder. Then what? What's the incentive NOT to murder the person you raped?
Maybe you're just the sort of fiend who would only rape someone but murder really isn't up your sleeve of particular evil you're inclined to visit on the world of your own independent volition. But, now the state says that you're going to be executed for rape just as if you would if you're caught for murder. What then? Well, you might be so inclined to murder your victim to prevent that person from ever testifying against you... after all, you're in the same situation whether you murder them or not in terms of legal liability.
This result we obviously wish to avoid, which is why we don't execute rapists... even if we're buying into the incredibly bad idea that the government should be in the business of killing people as punishment for crimes... which we obviously shouldn't be.
So, that's what I think about that.