I think there could be a lengthy discussion about how death penalties fit in with moral codes. From a logical standpoint, a death sentence should have nothing to do with anger and hatred and everything to do with the same line of reasoning why a prison system must exist. In theory, a death sentence is more humane than life without parole, because it accomplishes the same removal of the dangerous person from society without maximizing the length of their suffering. However, as we probably agree, the system, in its current state, is dysfunctional. The methods of execution are botched (they are LESS humane than they were 100 years ago), the jury system is botched (lawyers should have no control over jury selection aside from any specific objection - as it currently stands, people with high-paid attorneys get juries biased toward acquittal and people with public defenders get juries biased toward conviction and neither of these are fair), the trial system is botched (because hundreds of people are convicted and later fully exonerated every year), the criminal justice system is botched (where arrests and indictments are incentivized but not proper police work), and the prison system is botched.

Some people just want to see the killer getting executed out of anger and hatred because that is how they feel towards the killer. Death penalties do not fit in with moral codes because it is wrong to end the life of a criminal the same way it is wrong to kill anyone at all but some people don't understand that because they are surrounded by people in their lives who think violence is necessary when it's not. Prison systems exist to keep the bad guys locked away from society for protection. A death sentence is not humane because it takes away the rights to live and the only place for killers in prison is "the hole" as they call it (solitary confinement) or perhaps put in chains for their time in prison. The only way to remove a dangerous person from society should be prison only but unfortunately some governments in certain parts of the world make the decision to execute the killer as a way from removing them but obviously the government are immoral. Not every country has executions such as my country, Ireland. If every country like Ireland was to put killers in prison only, that would be a moral code. Dysfunctional is the correct way to say it. The law in some countries is botched and there is nothing I can do about that unfortunately but if I had the power to take action, I would make sure that all the bad people be in prison for life without parole.

"A death sentence is not humane because it takes away the rights to live and the only place for killers in prison is "the hole" as they call it (solitary confinement) or perhaps put in chains for their time in prison." - So taking away all of their rights aside from their right to live, and then throwing them into a hole to rot and suffer forever is more humane than, say, the guillotine?! I generally disagree. But, to reiterate, I don't think the government should be trusted to determine this so long as the courts are fundamentally flawed. A couple of extreme governments, including China, have the death penalty to non-violent crimes, and I believe that to be wrong on multiple levels. But for murder, I believe it is a nuanced discussion. The moral dilemmas come into play, but not where you are highlighting in your comment. It comes into play when you figure that there has to be someone to flip a lever or pull a string or whatever that ends the other person - and that's not fair to them. It comes into play when the justice system has a poor batting average at accurate convictions. And it comes into play when different social classes get disproportionately punished.

The point being is that there is a reason for prison. All of their rights are taken away to teach them a lesson but they need to learn the error of their ways with their time in prison instead of getting executed. Executions are not humane because as I said, executions are an immoral decision from certain governments in parts of the world. I hear what you’re saying about China having the death penalty for nonviolent crimes. That is completely immoral and it’s unjustified. If the law was proper in every country, killers would be spending life in prison and not to be executed. All executions are unjustified from an immoral decision by the government. The one thing in common for people’s rights is the right to live and that includes killers. As I said, there is a reason for prison and that reason is punishment. Any pacifist would think the same way as I would and to go against executions because pacifists respect life. As someone who respects life, I expect killers to be in prison for life.

Obviously, you and I don’t see eye to eye on this sensitive topic. There would be no point continuing with this because the conversation would get nowhere. We don’t see eye to eye because I oppose executions and it seems you’re the opposite side.

I respect your opinion, I just don't understand it. I think we agree on the outcome, just for different reasons. I'm willing to leave it at that if you prefer. Thanks for the discussion.

No problem. Thanks for your consideration