zlacker

> A good person will refuse to hurt others no matter how badly they want to.

Does this include or exclude killing in self defense? Would a good person allow themselves to be killed rather than harming the attacker? Imagine that the assailant would be rehabilitated after serving 10-15 years for your murder and live a productive life with family and kids, does that change the equation? Is absolutist pacifism the end goal or is there an arbitrary line you are willing to draw?

>>dsego+(OP)
No, no, no, and no. In all of those cases the killing is justified by more than just bloodlust. I am not a pacifist and never have been.

Executions are different. People are not afraid to admit that they support executions because they like knowing that hated people will suffer. That is not something I will consider acceptable under any circumstances. If there were any evidence that capital punishment served a purpose beyond feeling good I might change my tune. But there isn't, so I won't.

You yourself admitted executions serve no practical purpose, so your self-defense hypotheticals are irrelevant.

>>adfgii+62
Recidivism rate is high so People who commit murded will likely commit other crimes if released so removing them from society is a good thing. Keeping them in jail forever is a waste of resources so execution is right approach. The one thing is that process should not take 20 years and all appeals should run out in a year or two at most so justice is reasonably swift.

We should not torture them on purpose but besides that I do not particularly care if they suffer or not during execution.

>>dfadsa+Qn
Execution is vastly more expensive than keeping people locked up. This is well documented. Shortening the appeals process enough to make it cheaper than prison would be radically authoritarian and would result in even more innocent people being executed.