pixie - // Tbf, if it is legal, it isn't murder... and we do have circumstances where it is acceptable to kill somebody else. Self-defence, maybe even "mercy killings" with their consent, could be forgivable. //
The circumstances you suggest are a universe away from a system where society decides to take the life of someone, as a 'punishment' for taking the life of someone else.
Leaving aside just how bizarre that notion is - statistics have long proven that capital punishment is no deterrent, how can it be?
Murder is an irrational act, so the idea that any potential murderer weighs up the consequences and avoids the act is simply farcical.
// In this case, I am not convinced he was actually sane... and although that makes no difference to victims or families, it does bother me a little, that we only judge outcome, rather than intentions. //
Which rather underlines my point - how do we judge beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is 'sane' enough to be executed? Just typing that sentence underlines the sheer inconceivability that this could be seen as any way for a society to conduct its punishment system.
// It is more expensive to execute someone than keep them in prison for life. And possibly- more humane. //
I can't see what is 'humane' about taking anyone's life - and I have already confirmed my view that the financial cost of keeping someone locked up for their lifetime is the cost we as a society undertake to pay.
We do so, because the alternative is to murder someone without the reason of blind rage, or cold calculation for gain, but simply because it suits us to avoid the responsibility of taking someone's life, which to my way of thinking, is even worse.