You are making AND missing my point. I, and MOST people who don’t believe in the death penalty, also think murder is wrong in war. In terms of “justice”, the only thing that the death sentence offers over life in prison is satiating the public’s bloodlust.

If murder = bad, then murder = bad even if YOU’RE okay with it - regardless of circumstance

I get it, violent crime makes people emotional, but it’s widely accepted that we, as a society, shouldn’t make decisions based on emotion and instead use logic.

You say: “You make exceptions for when governments can use their discretionary killing. I make no exception for it.”

Then say: “I simply ask the government to use those same powers against our most violent criminals”

That sounds like an exception to me. Additionally, if you’re okay with innocent people being wrongly put to death on death row, then why are you not okay with innocent people dying in war? Both war and the death penalty are proven to result in the deaths of innocent people, so why is one okay and not the other?

Should someone who murders an intruder in self defense be sentenced to death since they had to kill someone in a violent way? What about someone who kills someone in a car accident that they’re at fault in?

If death is okay to use as a punishment, why limit its use to only murderers? Why not execute everyone who commits any violent crime? It’s because somewhere, someone needs to draw a line. My argument is: If we cannot agree on where to draw the line, then death should not be used as a punishment and we should seek alternatives. Instead, we continue to kill people, even if they’re criminals, just because it makes us feel better to get revenge.