> it betrays your worldview. It implies that they are only being put to death because of the rules that somebody came up with, rather than for having done thing

> it betrays your worldview. It implies that they are only being put to death because of the rules that somebody came up with, rather than for having done things that are objectively, unspeakably, bad. No betrayal there. That is my worldview. Cultures through history varied a lot on which crimes were deemed worthy of capital punishment. Even now as we speak there are people who has been sentenced to death because someone saw them tear pages out of a book. Where I am from that is either not a crime or minor property damage. So clearly we as humans can’t agree on what is “objectively bad”. Even if we argue that those other cultures got it wrong and we have it right on who is objectively bad our processes are not deterministic. The same person if tried again with a different jurry might get acquited. Not always, and not and not every case, but often enough to undermine the notion that we are dealing with some kind of objective badness. > it must be done for the safety of everyone The idea that we have these dangerous criminals who cannot be contained safely in any other way than by killing them is a comic book plotpoint not reality. We have the technology and the resources to keep any humans safely contained if we choose to. We can even do this in a non-cruel way if that is what we want to do.