Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed for Certain Heinous Crimes?

For what crimes though?  And how do you decide?

Which crimes should be punished by death?

By definition, heinous crimes are those which fill us with hate. Hate motivates people to seek revenge, and often to 'respond in kind.' It is the responsibility of society to protect its citizens from the need to exact revenge as well as to punish the criminal.

The death penalty should be considered for crimes that incite hate, and cause death either directly or indirectly. By indirect I mean, for example, when a person places a harmless smoke bomb in public transportation, and people die when they try to get away or get out.

People who are opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances only encourage the perpetuation of the circle of hate motivated revenge. They are indirectly increasing the violence in society rather than reducing it.

Society is being severely damaged by drug use. In 1997, the latest year for which death certificate data are published, there were 15,973 drug-induced deaths in America. Drug-related illness, death, and crime cost America approximately $66.9 billion every year. 1

I suggest Americans consider the most serious punishments be applied to the selling of drugs known to cause death, and specifically the death penalty to the specific sellers of drugs in a specific incident where the use resulted in death. This includes legal drugs which are sold to people known to be addicted to, and known to over use - to the point of death by overdose - the legal drug. I would consider this in cases such as Marilyn Monroe and Michael Jackson, for example.

What use is it to fine a person $100,000 or $1,000,000 in a wrongful death case, when the perpetrator has been making $1 or $2 million a year selling drugs which are known to be deadly, and knowingly sells to someone who is likely to overdose?

1 Source