2nd: the right of the state to take out lives of its citizens is a rudiment of times when the power was believed to be of divine origin. A cavemen's chieftain, a pharao, a king crowned by Pope - all those historical characters could believe that people they ruled were their property they could freely dispose of.
At first I passed this over, but I just had a thought:
I don't think it's so much a matter of whether citizens are considered the property of the leaders of the state. I think it's more a matter of whether there is hope and fear of divine judgement. If so, you will see the following beliefs:
1. An innocent condemned to death has nothing to fear: His life is over, but he will be exonerated before God, and may well be rewarded for bearing ill treatment well.
2. A guilty person will answer before God whether or not he is convicted and punished, but conviction and punishment forces him to face his crimes and gives him the opportunity (whether he takes it or not) to repent.
3. An official who negligently or intentionally condemns an innocent person to death will answer to God, as will an official that negligently or intentionally fails to convict or level proper punishment against a guilty person.
4. Officials who convict the guilty and acquit the innocent will be rewarded by God.
Since I hold these beliefs, I remain fairly pro-death penalty, but it does help to explain to me why the death penalty has become such anathema in Western culture, where these beliefs are increasingly absent.