Death penalty

The overly stated opinions related to the death penalty are that it is not a deterrent which is debatable, And is not your argument for the death penalty, So I really cannot argue from this point. The other is the possibility of an innocent being put to death, It sounds like your burden of proof would be very high, So most likely this would not be an argument against your points. The final argument I often hear is that many of the family and friends of the victims do not find closure with an execution, But this would be an invalid argument in this case because some families probably do find closure, And this too is not an argument you use in defense of capitol punishment. What I am saying is that you have covered all of the major arguments against the death penalty by limiting it's application to a small group of people. Outside of the standard arguments I worry about who is drawing the line. I know you mentioned a governing body like NATO, The EU, Or UN, But still some member countries of this organization do not represent what I personally consider to be a good standard to use when making moral judgments, So their line may and will be different from the ones that we/I would like to see. An example of this is the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). I would be worried that such a body would not have the same narrow definition of where the line is drawn on who does and does not receive the death penalty. Having a body that determines where any line is would be a risky venture (though all laws are that), But when it comes to the life of another person, This would be too important to leave to an international group. As an example, The UNHRC is made up of the countries that have questionable human rights records. For example, The current members are Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Senegal, Egypt, Rwanda, Tunisia, South Africa, Burundi, Ivory Cost, Ethiopia, Kenya, Togo, Afghanistan, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, China, Iraq, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Philippines, UAE, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Panama, Venezuela, Australia, Spain, UK, Iceland, Belgium, Germany, And Switzerland. I am not going to list names, And maybe you agree with all of them being on this counsel, But from this list I personally would only want maybe nine countries to be on a rule making board regarding human rights, And especially when it comes to the life of a person. To me the makeup of the UNHRC is a joke, A bad one at that. Many of these countries practice harsh treatment, Or even death, For things such as blasphemy, Dissidence, And homosexuality. For the UN you could not really say, We only want the "good" ones coming up with rules regarding the death penalty as it is made up of a coalition of questionable countries involved in the decision making. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council. I have always found the countries that make up the UNHRC to be a joke. The worse your Human Rights record, The more likely you are to be nominated to be a part of this committee. I list this mostly to demonstrate that having a "subjective group, " even at the UN level, Or any other for that matter. NATO may be a better option as many of these countries have a better Human Rights record, But there are still some I would question. I believe that even within the United States we would have trouble coming up with a fair list of how to draw the line for who deserves death. I cannot really say what states would have a broader interpretation of the death penalty, And which would have a more narrow focus, But I am sure that the contrast between the actions of Texas and Vermont may demonstrate that a national consensus would be difficult to reach. To me a problem still is that gray line, And what committee or governing body chooses it. I do not believe you can trust the UN, NATO, Or even individual states to come up with a fair definition of what deserves death. Maybe the current makeup of the EU may be a good start, But as Hitler, Stalin, And Lenin have shown us, A "good" country can go bad pretty quickly. Just because a country has a good human rights record does not mean that it will remain this way in the future. Sorry for the rambling, So sum up, I think your arguments are solid and good. I still do think it would be difficult to create any body to come up with a fair list of what deserves death. We cannot only select "good" people to make up these boards. We cannot tell the UN that Australia, The UK, Germany, And Belgium can set the rules while ignoring the rest of the world, The same would apply to any other country. I also revert back to my original argument that if I am unwilling to literally pull the trigger, I should not nominate others to do so for me, The blood is still on my hands. The really only fair way in my mind is to call a jury pool of average citizens and assign them to carry out the death penalty. Some states do this with witnesses to the death, This could be expanded to having them as executioners. In this way, We are reminded that it is us as citizens that are putting this person down, Not some far removed group of people we do not interact with. Pleasure to speak with you.