Contrary to most liberals, I cannot entirely support an end to the death penalty. However, the death penalty I have in mind is not the death penalty in existence today. It should not be used for crimes of passion or violence, nor in any case where there is any room for doubt. Most such criminals are largely products of their society. Well, that is a different argument that many people have already made.
In any case, they may bring ruin to other people, but generally to no more than a handful of victims. There are individuals in our nation who bring ruin, if not as gruesome, then certainly more pervasively and chronically to the whole or large portions of society. Generally, these individuals escape all punishment. The most frequent punishment is poor public polling, or losing an election. Occasionally, they are sent to prison for a few years. Are these “white collar” prisons any more difficult to bear than the rigorous life of a true monk in a monastery? I guess I wouldn’t know.
But to the point: Concerning severe, premeditated crimes of corruption among our democratically elected politicians, I believe that the death penalty should not merely be permissible, but that it should perhaps be required by a just state.
Perhaps when a politician is brought up on charges of political corruption, and once that politician has been found guilty by a court of expert lawyers, judges, and a jury or citizens, a special election should be held asking the public what the punishment should be. A simple majority in favor of the death penalty would be too hasty: but perhaps a 2/3 majority should suffice.
Upon sentencing, the politician should be given the opportunity to speak his or her piece to the public, and given a sufficient amount of time to reflect on what those words will be. Perhaps a month is sufficient.
In short, the capital punishment should be reserved only for our nation’s most powerful public servants when they unambiguously betray the public that they have sworn to serve, when the public servant has been thoroughly examined by a fair court, and when citizens overwhelmingly vote in favor of such a penalty.
Of course, who would propose or pass such a law? Everyone who has the power would also be the law’s prime target. Individuals in power rarely forfeit their power: groups of people in power, seeking consensus, almost never do.
I would challenge and call upon anyone to show me in what way this notion is unjust, or unjustly unsympathetic.
Natural Causes 
I don’t know about unjust, per se, but I am not sure if it’s a good idea to put one of the decision points about punishment in the hands of the electorate. I realize that the argument could be made that we put such power into the common folks’ hands when we elect a president, especially over nations not our own which our military has involvement with.
Case: the comments on news articles that supposedly help educate the public about issues are ferociously anti-intelligence. The comments don’t just showcase ignorance, it is as if the people posting them want to PROVE their ignorance. Such folks rarely have the foresight to appreciate the effects of bread ‘n circus voting against someone’s life.
Perhaps if the general public were more educated I could support such a plan.
The public endowed these individuals with the powers and duties of public office. The public should therefore have some hand in deciding the punishment for those public servants that have failed in that trust.
This binds the spheres of the will of the people with the execution of that will. If, as you say, the people are unworthy of making such a decision, or incapable of making that decision responsibly, then for the same reasons we should conclude that we are simply unworthy of having a democracy.
Furthermore, this forces the people to have a hand in the slaying. If that public servant was executed, then the people would have to accept that they had a hand in the execution.
This would, I think, make many people weigh their judgment more carefully. It is one thing to demand something when the individual lacks the power, or does not bear the consequences, of the devision; it is something else when the critic partakes in the decision itself.
But perhaps 2/3 majority is still too fragile for such a weighty decision. Perhaps 4/5 would be a better requirement. We may not have exceptional trust in the public, but if we can’t even trust 80% of the public for such a decision, then we certainly should not trust 50%+ for the selection of our Commander in Chief.
Your last paragraph hits the nail on the head, I think. I don’t trust no body no how.
One of the best arguments against any sort of death penalty is that the criminal justice system is far from infallible. There are lots of guilty verdicts that end up being overturned. Someone in prison can always be released, but what do we do for someone who is unjustly executed?
I agree, completely. But there are some cases, and some degrees of evidence, that leave no doubt as to the guilt of the accused. Surely such a weighty punishment should be reserved only for those cases for which all doubt is absent.
Furthermore, with a democratically elected public servant, unlike that of a normal citizen, the public servant chose and pursued the mantle of public servant, and was freely endowed by his/her constituents with that power and responsibility. Any extra set of laws or punishments that the public servant is subject to is understood and freely accepted by the public servant when they take office and swear an oath. They ought to accept not only the power that comes with that office, but a commensurate set of punishments for betraying those people who have handed that power to the servant. When a democratically elected public servant violates the law, they are doing harm upon the servant’s entire state.
For a normal citizen found accused of murder, that individual has at no time chosen to be subject to the laws and punishments of his/her state.
Before I respond with an opinion on this matter, let me try to better understand the purpose of permitting or requiring such punishment. You have mentioned the interests of justice as a justification. Does this indicate a retributive motive? That we must or should enforce punishment for its own sake based on what people deserve? Is there also an underlying motive of specific or general deterrence? Should we do this so that politicians will be more likely to avoid such actions in the future? Is there some other motive? For instance, would this punishment in some way attempt to make up for the damage done to the American people?
Interesting points here, but we truly don’t live in a democracy. Utimately, the electoral college decides so I don’t think ” we” are really deciding.
I agree with the first comment as well. Most of the general populace is ignorant. Most don’t know or care. To go along with one of your recent posts, luxury, passion, and excess are motivating factors. These factors combined with ignorance are not a good mix. But if combined with the opposite, it can be good.
Also, political corruption is one thing. But I’m sure there are different levels. If this corruption has taken lives, yes I do think the death penalty can seem justified. But if the leader didn’t initiate killing or killed, I don’t believe the death penalty is justified entirely.
I do like the focus and desire to punish the initiators, the leaders, the politicians. These people are the reason why civilians end up in jail many times. Inadequate ruling, and yes even if politicians were caught, the elite hardly gets as punished as common folk. Money and position talks.