I must admit that I've been imprecise. I do recognize the right to kill in case of self-defence (to which DGB examples refer)
I also admit DF's proposition that if life is seen as a possession, then the right of possession is the most important right (that's an interesting point).
Now, I don't see why the "ultimate penalty" should be death penalty. For me it's life in prison.
If your idea of proportionality is the basis of your support of death penalty, then it's a surprising and fragile basis (doesn't your "proportionality" occasionally mean "similarity" ?).
I don't see why the justice should be linear : it even can't be.
If someone commits 10 times your (not defined) "ultimate crime", you can't apply 10 times your ultimate penalty if the said penalty is death (or life in prison). So your linearity turns out to be "degressivity" to the worst law offenders. In fact, you can't really apply mathematics-type rules to justice, but you can be sure that your "proportionality" is nothing but an illusion.
Second point: There's a fault, a backdoor in your argumentation about fair trial DF:
Laws can be unjust and enable executions for crimes like adultery (Iran for example), poaching (medieval France)" and so on. These aren't arbitrary decided executions, but will you defend it ?
A dictatorial state can create laws that will condemn you (a dictatorship is characterised by the concentration of legislature, executive and judicial, and sometimes religious, powers).
It also may make false proof (Mumia's defenders pretend such a thing, but it's another debate as you would say, right ?).
The conclusion of this point would be my previous post.
Death penalty means that the sentenced person is deprived of the possibility to enjoy any of the rights a human being can pretend to.
Prison for life is the loss of liberty, but it's compatible with Jefferson's words quoted by DF("Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.), the rights of the others that justify this loss of liberty being the right to be protected.
That makes a lot of difference, and that's why a "decent liberal democracy" shouldn't use death penalty.
**
Other questions:
MacVeight: Killing him was a mistake. That's exactly what he expected: killing him strengthens his ideas. In his mind, and in the mind of people like him, he is a martyr.
I'm not really interested in the other cases.
For China and Korea: I don't speak Chinese, neither Korean to say it in Korean. Does it mean I shouldn't say it in English ?