Nah, not at this end of the chain. And when "one of ours" is facing execution for drug smuggling, it becames a media event from a different perspective.
What needs a rethink is the war on drugs. It hasn't worked. The US has about 5% of the world's population and about 40% of the world's incarcerated. Many are people convicted on various drug charges, eg possession of a small amount of a restricted substance. Once released after their sentence they cannot access welfare or housing. Finding a job is almost impossible, etc. So, they turn back to the drug world because it is the only way to make some money to survive. It creates a downward spiral for both individuals and their communities.
What was that? We got soft, or we couldn't trust the justice system. I can think of a few likely candidates.
There have been enough cases of wrongful convictions and life sentences that would previously have meant hanging to be sure that the justice system is far from faultless and the death penalty not a safe solution. As for Trump, his activities against so-called drug smugglers are illegal - international waters, no stop and search, just boom and kill the lot while they sink the boats. The US navy is surely capable of capturing the boats concerned and conducting searches to prove their suspicions. I suspect the summary destruction of these boats, including innocent fishermen, is meant to be a detterrent to drug smugglers but can't see it working. What would help is a decent social system in the US that gave people enough education to get good jobs, a decent living wage that means they can afford homes and health care for the sick and injured rather than the current health system which can bankrupt even the well-off middle classes.
I believe those who say they are in favour of the death penalty, should think long and hard about whether they could carry out the sentence and act as the executioner and all that that would entail.
Again, I can think of a few I would wipe off the planet without a second thought. That is the same thinking as should be applied to people who eat animals, but it rarely is how the majority think. What you are basically saying is, yes, we have gone soft.
Tariffs may make sense where a country can produce enough of a product but that product can be obtain from a foreign country due to Government subsidies in that foreign country. Putting tariffs on something a country requires but doesn't produce hurts the receiving country far more than the producer.
I was always in favour of the death sentence for those convicted of murder where there was clear proof that they were guilty. I'm not so sure now given the number of cases, particularly it would seem in the USA, where there was only 'clear proof' because the prosecution withheld evidence proving the innocence of the accused.
There has also been a fair few clear cut cases recently, they languish in prison for years at a very high cost per person. Plus they remain a threat to prison officers and the general public, should they be allowed to escape. Or even when released as a 'life sentence' is rarely more than 10 to 15. Yrs.
Do you think it's worth the danger of executing an innocent person to protect against a very few cases where someone has been released after serving a "life" sentence? I would say not in the UK and have noticed that minimum tariffs for "life" sentences seem to be increasing or even mean life for some crimes. I wouldn't trust the US justice system as far as I could throw Trump. The qualifications to become a policeman or deputy are risibly low in some places, especially backwoods red states where they know nothing about preserving or collecting forensic evidence and tend to assume the nearest black man or woman will do as the guilty party. Trees in some southern states still grow "strange fruit" as descrived in that song. Even in towns the system is rife with inetitudes and corruption and heavily weighted against those who can't afford decent legal representation. Under Trump, corruption in prosecutors and judges has become brazen, including the current chief attorney general.
I would have thought 20 yrs in prison would be worse than dying. Once you are dead, all punishment is over. (Spoiler alert - there are no celestial virgins waiting for you, no eternity spent in some heavenly environment. Death equals the end of brain neurons firing and, therefore, the end of you.). So, surely, those wanting offenders to pay a price for their crime would favour prison over execution.
I tend to think of it more of a practical solution than spend 100 000 a year, or whatever, looking after them. There were cases, and still are, where there is no question of doubt, I can think of at least two fairly recent ones. Three prison officers getting drowsed with boil oil comes to mind, that person should have been properly dealt with in the first place.
"the first place" would probably have been some sort of supportive intervention when the offender was about 4 though. Youth services cut to the bone has longterm implications for individuals and society at large. Austerity 15 yrs ago is bound to play out in crime rates now. That's a given. It's just if you have been educated at Eton and Oxford, you have likely never come across reality and don't understand the effects of decisions you blithely take to further the financial interests of the very few.
