I take the view of distinction between individual and state authority. The State has the moral imperative to enforce the laws and consequences to the laws -- the latter and some of the former are prohibited to individuals; those who do so anyway we term "vigilante" and that's the basis of Mayson's gripe with Superman, no? But even within comics we see gradiations -- Superman works in strong cooperation with law enforcement; Batman has a loose association, but usually enforces laws while leaving consequences to the justice system; the Punisher enforces both laws (his own) and consequences (his own) and is an outlaw because of it.
The State, in order to fulfill its role, also holds the right to carry out punishments that individuals may not do. The judge has the authority to make life-and-death decisions, but only in his or her role as a judge. When speaking as part of the judicial system, that authority exists. When speaking as an individual, it does not. Likewise the actions of the executioner -- Mr. Bobby Jones does not have the right to take life; it is the office he holds which has that right and duty under certain circumstances.
Now, whether that should be one of the consequences the State may set and impose? I say a tentative yes. People are being cleared who were previously convicted, now that we have more advanced technology. But by the same token, doesn't that mean we may be more sure of the validity of recent convictions?
There are crimes which can warrant death. Whether a particular criminal warrants it is a case-by-case decision, but I feel that it should be an option which the judge and jury may choose from among others.
