I don't believe in the death penalty because I think it's horribly cruel to kill someone when you have a choice not to. It's horribly cruel especially when the death brings no benefits. Life imprisonment is a much better solution if you don't want that person to re-enter society.
People believe that the death penalty is a huge deterrence, but statistics (in the US, for example) do not suggest this. At least, that's what I've heard, though I haven't studied the data myself. I've also read that deterrence value is derived from the perceived probability of getting caught, and not so much from the harsh penalty of getting caught (with certain assumptions, of course, like assuming that that penalty isn't just a slap on the wrist).
Singapore institutes a mandatory death penalty for drug smugglers. This policy does not help with nabbing the kingpins, though it kills the pawn, who is sacrificed by the drug lords. People still smuggle drugs even though there is the death penalty, probably because they are at their wits' end, and they just can't not do this. This doesn't make it OK, of course, but I think it's very wrong to murder a desperate man. The ones really making a profit from this "business" are the drug lords, not the pawns.
Let's talk about owning responsibility. Let's talk about sex. Humans generally have sexual urges, and there is a proliferation of porn sites, should the government crack down on all these sites to prevent addiction? Or gambling. Should the government ban gambling to prevent addiction? Should the government kill all drug smugglers to prevent addiction?
In all these examples, the victim is his own enabler. And it's all about money. The addict pays for the addiction, and is responsible in part. This is not to say that the casinos and drug dealers don't take advantage of the addiction. And we (humans, mammals, animals) are all biologically similar, and susceptible to addiction, just a matter of degree.
The situation with drug trafficking bears resemblance to a war. War on drugs, as Bush would say. Say you catch a smuggler, who surrenders like the enemy. In a war, do you open fire on enemy troops who have surrendered? Not unless gripped by fear and suspicion. There is no reason for you to kill unless your own life is at risk.
The drug users are the ones with the money that funds the drug trade. If I hire an assassin to take out my enemy, who is the murderer? If the assassin gets caught, hang the guy, and problem solved? The assassin is certainly part of the problem, but the root cause is actually me, the person who ordered the hit. If you eat meat, the workers at the farms and slaughterhouse are confronted with and bear the burden of the cruelty that this entails, but you must recognize that your money is what keeps the bloody business going.
The addiction is the core problem with drugs, and the true enabler driving the system is money, which flows from the drug users to the drug lords through the smuggler.
'Yes' to harsh punishments and severe penalties for those involved in the drug trade, because there is some deterrence effect in sending someone to prison, and because they are dangerous to drug addicts and potential drug addicts like all of us. Remove that link in the chain, and keep society safe.
But not death, not murder. Don't take away a life because it cannot be returned. There is no rehabilitation for the dead, and blood is on our hands.
