>>>The death penalty
>>
>>From a legal standpoint, I now oppose the death penalty because of the possibility of executing an innocent individual Judges and juries are not perfect, they are capable of making mistakes. So life in prison (where it truly means life, no option for parole) is sufficient. If the wrong person was convicted, he/she can be released, the state can make restitution, etc.
>>
>>But - if someone indeed committed first-degree pre-meditated murder and is convicted in this country - and if they truly were guilty - as far as I'm concerned they are monsters and have surrendered their right of protection. Just drop them in shark-infested waters.
>
>This thread started with a discussion of how governments do or do not condone killing people, for what some people (others might not) think are good reasons.
>
>How is the death penalty not exactly that?

Context matters - an individual who elects to end the life of an innocent victim in a pre-meditated fashion, and is convicted AS SUCH, cannot claim any rights. They forfeit all rights. That is the one scenario where someone loses legal protection - when they act to take a life in a first-degree, pre-meditated manner and are convicted.

Like I said, legally I now oppose the death penalty. But if someone is truly guilty and is sentenced to capital punishment, you won't see me marching against it.