[stirfrykitty]

If a child killer is duly convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt, then that is the fitting end. Full stop. It's not murder, it's justice. I'm rather sick of how soft the West has gotten in dealing with serious crimes. You murder someone, especially an innocent child, you have broken the social compact and you deserve to be removed from society permanently. Tax payers should not be spending their hard-earned money keeping the evil murderers alive.

[happytoexplain]

>You murder someone... you deserve to be removed from society permanently

I disagree, if only in the sense that I may consider some killings that meet the legal definition of murder to not deserve permanent removal from society.

>You murder [an innocent child]... you deserve to be removed from society permanently

I agree, but, barring practical constraints, killing isn't the only way to do that. It is, unfortunately, the easiest, as well as the most gratifying to many people's sense of bloodlust in regards to people they hate who perhaps are not as evil as child murderers, or perhaps have been wrongly or disproportionately convicted. I think there is a dramatic problem where, more and more, people want to use emotions to dictate laws. If somebody hurt my child badly enough, I'd want them dead - and not just in the heat of the moment. But I'd consider it dystopic to enshrine my pain and emotional need for revenge into law.

>Tax payers should not be spending their hard-earned money keeping the evil murderers alive.

I agree, but I think this problem is one entire tier of gravity down from the decision of whether or not to institutionalize the killing of citizens, and does not have a place in the moral question, which is the interesting and relevant one.

>Full stop.

You're immediately broadcasting an unwillingness to engage and discuss, which I think is antithetical to the spirit of HN.

[tenebrisalietum]

> Tax payers should not be spending their hard-earned money keeping the evil murderers alive.

The problem is the justice system is run by human beings and is subject to error and corruption. Convictions can and have been wrong. If the evidence is not 100%-confirmed-not-fake video showing the act, then there is always the possibility someone has lied or been paid off.

So I definitely think if we have to have the death penalty, the decade or longer that often passes by until it's actually administered is a really good idea. We should be 100% sure the best we can before we commit irreversible actions. If the state/taxpayer can't afford to do this then it can't afford to pursue justice.

Your emotional response and generalization about "the West", while justified in the case of actual child killers, is a weakness, because it contributes to moral panics that end up diluting rights and justice, rather than the opposite.

[anoncake]

> If a child killer is duly convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt,

I.e. never. Even if killing someone in cold blood for selfish and primitive reasons somehow wasn't murder when the state does it, only killing those who "deserve" it is simply not possible.

> I'm rather sick of how soft the West has gotten in dealing with serious crimes.

I'm sick of how soft the West still is in dealing with people who advocate murder. You should be removed from society. It's not vengeance (what you think is "justice"), it's self defence. Only until you can be resocialized, of course. Because for civilized people, that's the purpose of punishments.