I did not mean monetary costs but societal costs as well. Having a dangerous person in banishment still leaking danger to society costs more lives than that of one person.
Let’s say there’s a cartel boss and sure you lock them up but they can still cause enough instability to start a cartel war killing thousands of innocents - wouldn’t killing them (legally) be better for society as it would save thousands of lives? I mean we can probably be quite certain they’re the cartel boss, not 100% but as close as practically possible right?
Once again you are focusing on punishing the guilty and not sparing the innocent. If we want to execute cartel bosses we will also execute innocent people. the only way to be sure the death penalty is not used erroneously is not use it at all.
I did not mean monetary costs but societal costs as well. Having a dangerous person in banishment still leaking danger to society costs more lives than that of one person.
Let’s say there’s a cartel boss and sure you lock them up but they can still cause enough instability to start a cartel war killing thousands of innocents - wouldn’t killing them (legally) be better for society as it would save thousands of lives? I mean we can probably be quite certain they’re the cartel boss, not 100% but as close as practically possible right?
Once again you are focusing on punishing the guilty and not sparing the innocent. If we want to execute cartel bosses we will also execute innocent people. the only way to be sure the death penalty is not used erroneously is not use it at all.
Nah these absolutist puritan arguments are just nonsensical drivel.
Its the only point Im making, you just want there to be a murder law more than you want to spare innocent people from being executed