Cruel? Nitrogen asphyxiation is probably one of the most painless, gentle ways to go.

Your trigger that you can’t breathe is a buildup of carbon dioxide. But as you can still exhale, you feel no panic. You just slowly drift unconscious and die. I’d take it over most causes of death.

You know what else is cruel? People killing other people. And the former continuing to live despite their cruelty.

The only rub against execution to me is the risk of executing the innocent. But that is not the concern here. There is no dispute this guy is guilty.

You know what else is cruel? People killing other people.

Then why aren’t you advocating for executing those that execute killers? After all, they kill people. But I’m going to assume that you think those killers are okay.

Executions are generally set up so no one person is responsible for the person’s death. And they generally volunteer.

How are they different from a war veteran that killed somebody during war?

Executions are generally set up so no one person is responsible for the person’s death. And they generally volunteer.

Okay. Why not kill all those who might be the killer? If not, why allow the spreading of the responsibility? If two guys beat someone up and kill them, would you be as lenient, considering we don’t know which one actually killed them?

How are they different from a war veteran that killed somebody during war?

In war often there is no choice (at least if you’re defending - I don’t condone wars of aggression). With death row inmates we do have a choice! You understand the difference, right?

As I said elsewhere, because they are doing their duty. We empower people to do otherwise illegal things all the time. If some random guy demanded your tax records and wanted a percentage of your income, they would the charged with theft. When an IRS auditor does it, it isn’t illegal.

So you are ok sending the innocent to die, but refuse to condemn the guilty? I am sorry, I do not like the other choice. When someone kills someone else and we can prove it beyond any doubt, that murderer should not get to be housed, fed, and cared for for life. I get that it may even cost more, but that’s where I’d rather spend money.

As I said elsewhere, because they are doing their duty. We empower people to do otherwise illegal things all the time. If some random guy demanded your tax records and wanted a percentage of your income, they would the charged with theft. When an IRS auditor does it, it isn’t illegal.

So people killing people is okay if the right people kill the right people?

So you are ok sending the innocent to die

No, defending yourself is different from “sending the innocent to die”. If the choice is to die peacefully or to die fighting, the latter is the better option, since you might not die.

but refuse to condemn the guilty?

Where did I say anything about not condemning the guilty? Is killing other people the only way to satisfy your dismay for them, even if you’ll kill innocent people this way?

I am sorry, I do not like the other choice. When someone kills someone else and we can prove it beyond any doubt, that murderer should not get to be housed, fed, and cared for for life. I get that it may even cost more, but that’s where I’d rather spend money.

Then why do states with the death penalty keep killing innocent people, even though this is supposedly already the standard? You’re the one who wants innocent people to die.