Good point. In direct defense of a person (self or otherwise), killing can be acceptable.
But in retaliation (which is what the Death penalty really is), nobody is allowed to kill, and IMO that "nobody" should include the government.
Nobody is allowed to kill another person in POTENTIAL defense, which is what argument #1 is calling for.
Argument #2 is just the vengeance argument reworded.
And I would say that anyone who is convicted of murder should never be released. Why allow them to become recidivist?
It is ok to have murderers live long in prison because you only care if people not in prison are protected, but its ok to subject people in prison to murderers?
Do your think that really is possible within human nature? Can we outlaw core humanity? The emotional humanity? Is retaliation always immoral even?
In my instance, some of the men outright told him if he ever came back they will take him out in one of the swamps and kill him - so don't come back. The sheriff's department (no city police) told him they had a duty to protect him but given how remote, rural etc it is unlikely they could. Why did the men tell him this? Self protection of everyone in the community.
This is a very friendly and live-and-let-live community. They ignore "victimless crimes" (like drug laws) as long as they remain victimless. But is also is essentially a zero crime area - literally disbanded the police department years ago. The very rare crimes that happen they claim are always by outsiders.
That was so in my case also. The lack of crime is many reasons including higher levels of economics, sense of community, alarms, everyone knows and looking out for everyone, lots of guns, a very strong "castle doctrine" and - I suspect - the occasional disappearances in the swamp justice history that dates back to the beginning.
Unfortunately, our legal system doesn't protect people from crime. It only attempts (often doesn't) to punish the person after the fact for a limited time in jail. Punishment doesn't in any way erase what the victim(s) went through.
People are not solely logical creatures. They are also emotionally driven. Law can only go so far in controlling emotions. I'll give an extreme theoretical example...
A man who had murdered your child who "served his time" is in line with you at a grocery store. You and your wife were never able to have another child. The man looks at you, smiles and says,
"well, seems I did my part for population control. Your daughter sure was a pretty little thing. Wish you could see the look on her face and have heard her screams while I was stabbing her."
Law allows nothing but a verbal response from you.
Is that anywhere near real?
I was just involved in a criminal case in which the DA asked what I wanted in the sentencing. What I wanted was banishment of the person from my life in every possible way while in and after release from prison. That mattered
far more to me than how long he would be in prison. Punishment of him didn't matter to me because it did nothing for me whatsoever. The ONLY interest I had in prison was prison assured he was out of my life. What mattered is him out of my life and also not forcing anyone else to constrain themselves in relation to him.
My list was very long and the court ordered all of it as conditions while in prison, conditions for eligibility for future parole and parole conditions. These included (nor is all of them)that he never state my name except in court proceedings, that he never come within 100 miles of my residence nor within 100 yards of any of my relatives or my boyfriend (by name), and no direct or indirect contact of any kind. It also ordered in the event of a child he has exactly no parental rights of any kind nor can claim parentage.
To me it wasn't how long he was in prison, but how long those terms could be imposed is what mattered. The sentencing specified the maximum jail term - a relatively short time (very short), but also imposed the absolute maximum allowed in law for the offense - which is life - for the terms of banishment. He received far less prison time in exchange for life long banishment from my life and the community. That protects me, everyone and even him.
Seriously, if I looked up and he was on the other side of the front door, is it anywhere realistic that I would say "hi, how ya doing?" to him? Or is it just gut human nature - unavoidable, uncontrollable - that I'd instantly open up on him with a .357 - later POSSIBLY deciding that was an over reaction?
If instead my boy friend came to the door and he was there, what is a realistic response he would (or even should) have? Now just continuously worry if he's out in the woods around our house? Never again go outside alone? Live in constant fear imprisoned in our house?
I do believe societal retaliation is justifiable and called for. Prison is a retaliation, any punishment is. Most people want Osama Bin Ladin dead. Is there a contradiction in that?
Does this slogan work? "Just because someone illegally imprisoned you, that doesn't justify society imprisoning that person." That is the same slogan for anti-death penalty. Isn't a life sentence with no possibility of parole also inhumane?
Do you agree with the principle of banishment?