A very sensitive subject, more so than most people will think at first glance, as this goes way beyond merely death penalty.
Now as a European, coming from a legal system where death penalty has been abolished for quite a long time now and is regarded as archaic indeed, I am naturally against the death sentence. To put it simply, let us use the quote from Master Tolkien's Lord of the Rings:
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. "
This sums it up pretty well, for the central question is: What gives us the right to kill a person? We all do not live in such archaic times anymore, where only the strong and genetically superior survive at the cost of the weaker specimen's lives. We have agreed on a "social contract" so to say to live together in a society, and agreed to obey the rules of that society. Now most (and definitely all what we would call "civilized") societies have rules on what people may and may not do, in order to ensure a maximum of security and prosperity for all. Of course those rules have to be put down. This is done in legal systems. And of course these legal systems differ from country to country, and the death penalty is just a prime example. While in some places, it is "legal", in others - such as Austria - it is not. However, the mere fact that it is legal, the mere fact that such action is NOT punished by law does not mean that this action - e.g. death penalty - is "right" or "just". For those are purely ethical questions. So first and foremost, it is of utter importance to realize that only because something is or is not permitted by a certain legal system does not mean it is "right" or "just" in the ethical sense.
And it is precisely this ethical sense that creates a lot of questions, as once again we will have a myriad of viewpoints on this - the ancient Romans used to say: "quot capita tot sensus" - as many heads, as many opinions. Anyway, in this particular case, my two cents are those:
As said, I am strictly against death penalty. Firstly because it is an irreversible act. As we all know, courts are not infallible, and more than once have innocent people been punished for things they did not do. If you lock someone up, and even if its for 30, 40, 50 years - if for some reason it turns out it was a mistake, there is still the chance for him to get free and have at least some kind of life left. It may not always work out for them, but at least there is a small chance. If you straight out kill someone, it's over.
Secondly, how can I claim the right to kill someone? If a person commits a crime and murders someone, of course he must be subject to punishment; for if his acts had no consequences, all hell would break loose as society would crumble and fail. However, the "right" to kill someone cannot be given, in my opinion. We in our societies simply "take" it - especially in those where death penalty is legal. Human life is and also must be the ultimately highest value there is, as it simply is the be all and end all of our very existence; if this value is not regarded with utmost respect, everything else is rendered worthless in my mind.
And thus I think it never can be within the true intention of a society to legally permit an intrusion into this ultimate value of such grave effect as death. Of course, every kind of punishment must hurt in some way; or else it will not be effective as punishment. If you take someone's money or belongings as a "fine" for trespassing against law, it will hurt him and intrude on his right to private possession. If you lock someone up, it will have an impact on his right of freedom. But never should a legal system go so far as to devalue life itself so greatly that it would legalize the destruction of it. It is hypocritical to on the one hand cherish life and value it in the form that crimes against life itself are those which usually incur the most severe punishments and sentences, but then go so far as to legalize the extinction of that life. I find that somewhat irritating.
Basically, it also leads to the classical ethical dilemma that many of us know as example. You have this train that is approaching and cannot be stopped. On one track, you have a hundred people that will be run over if the train goes that way, and on the other, you have only one person that will be run over. Which way do you turn the lever, do you save one or do you save hundred? What may seem easy to decide at first is not so easy at all, and many philosophers have dealth with this issue. And ultimately, I believe the conclusion has been reached that one life cannot be outweighed against another; all life most be considered of equal worth; and I believe this has also been laid down in the European Human Rights Convention. And this is what is central to my opinion. For as soon as you say "This life is worth less than that life", you open the door wide for any kind of propaganda, for any kind of more than questionable laws and acts against a certain group of people - be it because of gender, ethnicity, citizenship, hair colour, age, look etc etc... For as soon as you open the door and more or less accept any form of this quote - that one life is worth more/less than another - then you let in a flood of consequences and you will not be able to stem that flood anymore; simply because you have crossed that one single border that could have held them all at bay. If you say that all life is equal, then there is no room for racism or discrimination of any kind. But as soon as you accept the questionable "fact" that - for whatever reason - one life could be worth less then another, you basically open Pandora's box; for there will always be people who find reasons to claim that one group of people's lives are worth less than others; and what happens then can best be seen if you look at the history of Germany and Europe in the years 1930 - 1945. A certain group of people was deemed "less" by another group, and via propaganda and gruesome tactics people were made to hate that group; and ultimately a genocide ensued - all based on the acceptance of that perceivedly simple sentence - that one kind of life is worth less then another.
Now that being said, of course it is unquestionable that criminals need to be punished; and severe crimes must be punished severely, as the function and existence of a society itself depends on it. However, with regard to my arguments above, I simply have to claim that a death penalty - no matter against whom, no matter on what grounds, no matter for what reason - simply crosses a line a society should not cross, as it basically undermines the very central principle it is created upon: to preserve and facilitate life for its members; and that must include ALL of its members - even the "bad" ones, the ones that break the rules and harm other members of this society. For that, of course they deserve punishment. And under that premise, "life" can and should never be subject to any form of assessment in "better or worse" life - life must always be the single most important element by which all other acts, rules and characteristics of a society are measured.
So once again - of course punishment is necessary, and severe punishment for certain crimes such as murder, rape or child abuse - but at the end of the day, there is a certain line that should not be crossed; no matter how terrible the crime, how cruel the person, how gruesome the act. And in my opinion, death penalty crosses that line. And that being said, of course the initial question of the thread starter can only be answered in a similar way: If I even disagree with a death sentence for people who have commited the most heinous of crimes, then I have all the more to disagree with the "extermination" of anyone who "does not contribute" to society. For as already pointed out: That in and of itself is a very, very dangerous thing to say. The implications and consequences this statement invokes can at some point be even more cruel and gruesome than the crimes you would use it against; and ultimately would take from us much of what makes us human.
