I think too many people are innocently convicted of crimes, and that the penalty is unequally applied (although, I think this is more of an issue of sex and class - or the ability to afford a good lawyer - than of race). Given these flaws, I'd like to see our use of the death penalty severely restricted

True enough. I've got no moral qualms about states or nations using the death penalty, but, jeez, when we can't even stop innocent folks from receiving jail time, let alone a death penalty sentence, there needs to an ironclad and transparent review process that ensures that the right fucking person is indeed slated for imminent demise. The search for justice should be free of the taint of impropriety on all sides. Speaking of taint - caught this on the news yesterday:

Tim Masters was released from prison today after nearly ten years, following his conviction for murdering Peggy Hettrick in Fort Collins in 1987. An independent prosecutor reviewing the case filed a motion for the conviction to be vacated after new DNA testing pointed toward another man.

But in the Hettrick murder case, authorities strayed from this law by losing some of these biological relics and destroying evidence linked to a prominent doctor they never investigated for the crime.

In doing so, they may have covered the killer's genetic tracks.

This happened in Fort Collins, where a detective clung to his belief that a 15-year-old boy committed the crime, despite no physical evidence. In a county where prosecutors opposed saving DNA, let alone testing it. In a state where the law doesn't create a duty to preserve forensic evidence.

The result, as believed by three former Fort Collins police detectives and a former Colorado Bureau of Investigation director: An innocent man goes to prison for life, and the real killer moves on.

The really sad thing is that authorities aren't interested in getting innocent people released; they'd rather destroy evidence than admit fault. In Masters' case the lead investigator is now being investigated himself for not turning over evidence.

The Denver Post has whole series on these kinds of evidentiary problems:
Through carelessness or by design, tiny biological samples holding crucial DNA fingerprints often disappear on authorities' watch. Innocent people languish in prison, and criminals walk free. Police packaged requested evidence and labeled the box "DO NOT DESTROY." Then, they threw it in a dumpster.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

I feel the state should, and indeed needs to have the right to sanction the killing of people - and really, everyone does - nobody would suggest that a war of self-defense is illegal, but from a moral standpoint there's not all that much difference between executions and war.

But there is. A true war of self-defense (not "Eyerack has teh WMDeez, let' s git um!") is carried out to protect the physical, political, and cultural integrity of a nation, not to mention the lives of its people. The circumstances leading to a war of self-defense may be morally murky, and a war of self-defense can certainly be carried out in a dirty fashion, but it's a question of options. When a country has been subjected to armed attack, and diplomatic solutions have been exhausted, it has to choose between armed conflict and capitulation, and that's about it.

I can't think of a criminal case in which our only two options would be the death penalty or letting the offender go (capitulation). Life w/out possibility of parole is the alternative that comes to mind, but I'm sure we could think of others if that's unsatisfactory for some reason. Of course, whether they'll admit it or not, most people who support the death penalty derive satisfaction from the punitive aspect of the practice. They like the idea that someone who has engaged in a heinous crime "gets what's coming to them."* The analogy in matters of war would not be a war of self-defense, but a war carried out to punish another country for something. I'm pretty sure that sort of war is illegal, at least among nations that have signed the UN Charter.

In any event, I don't think it's wise to change our laws based just on world opinion.

South Africa agreed with that principle from 1948-1994. It took a lot of internal resistance to bring apartheid down.

*And so do I, at times. I'm not unconvinced that some crimes deserve death. I'm just unconvinced that the state has a moral right to mete out that penalty.  

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.