Originally Posted by zteccc

I note that in your post, you suggest that the family should be able to execute the criminal, but what if one of the rare cases arises where the police arrest the wrong person? What if the person convicted is not guilty and later the truth is realized? Would your "natural law" suggestion mean that the family members who killed that person would be protected? What about retribution from the family of the convicted person (whether wrongly convicted or not) on the family of the original victim, leading to a chain of retribution killings/family vendettas?

One of the reasons for trial and imprisonment and the drawn out death penalty is that if evidence is later brought up to clear a convicted felon prior to execution, the state avoids executing an innocent person (as we all know, it is possible to be convicted without ever committing a crime). Another reason is to avoid the situation of escalating killings between families and friends, one side being the relatives of the original victim and the other being the relatives of the first accused or convicted murderer. The people have chosen to allow the state to prosecute crimes because the state can attempt to be impartial, something that family and friends cannot be. As such, the state can cover all the bases. It can find someone guilty and still reserve the right to delay sentencing and execution of the sentence (including the death penalty) pending more information. It can also impose a sentence without triggering a vendetta effect. Is this something you want to give up?

-- Jeff