[PapaNew]

Your scenario is mutually exclusive, mine is not. You're saying either let dangerous criminals go free to threaten and harm others, or kill the criminal. I'm saying overhaul the medieval penal/justice system so that you keep dangerous criminals separated society, but don't kill the criminal.

I believe in the God-given sanctity and right to life and so does God who knew man would fail, so He Himself took the hit for everyone including that criminal. So even if the criminal takes other lives, God himself has paid for his crimes so the dangerous criminal is not condemned. His right to live has been purchased howbeit away from people on the outside who also have a right to live. So the criminal's right to life stays intact although his right to freedom has been curtailed to protect the lives of others.

[NorthMountain]

>> You're saying either let dangerous criminals go free to threaten and harm others, or kill the criminal

No, I am not. Read what I wrote. It does not say that. Our discussion is stalled until you understand what I have written, which at this point you do not.

[bert]

You have assumed a lot in that post

Society can make punishment as it sees fit. Execution is not only justified but required to prevent terrible crimes