The Death Penalty?

For a while, i have been confused in my own mind about whether or not i support the death penalty. I knew that i didn't support keeping people alive who have no chance of ever seeing the light of day again, and no respect for other people's lives. In that regard i support the death penalty. I also knew that i couldn't support any justification for granting such power to the State, that they have any control over the live or death of it's citizens. In that regard i don't support the death penalty.

Until now, i have never been able to reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions. Now i realize that having the death penalty doesn't necessarily mean giving the state control over it.

I now believe judges should have the power to sentence someone to death if the following conditions are met:

1) The judges office is not one subject to political appointments

2) A specific request was made for the judge to consider the death penalty

3) The request was made by a person representing the victim

4) The person who made the request was not a representative of the Crown, the State or any government agency

5) The victim does not contradict the request

6) The level of certainty of the accused's guilt meets some criteria that is higher than "beyond reasonable doubt"

7) The victim retains the power to pardon the victim and save them from the death penalty

8) No political or state office has a similar power to pardon, except higher courts if they believe the original verdict, level of certainty of guilt or sentence was in error.

N.B, in murder cases, the next of kin assumes all rights and responsibilities of the victim.

Any system of common rights relies on pairs of individuals mutually respecting each other's rights. If the accused has not respected the victim's rights, then violation of the accused's right to life is moral if and only if it is at the request of the victim, the one person for whom the requirement to respect the right is void.