@dsgrue3
"One innocent alone is too much for me." - this is really a testament to irrational thought. You basically suggest that it's okay for them to serve life sentences, but not be executed.
This is a straw men... I never claimed such a thing. As long as the person is alive, the chance of being proven innocent exists. Once you kill him/her though, there's no turning back. That's the difference. And whether one is worst than the other is a matter of opinion... Clearly all those relatives that protest in favor of the criminal and ask for a pardon would disagree with you.
"It's hypocritical" - It's a punishment for a crime. Nothing hypocritical about it.
You didn't address anything about my argument here... It's hypocritical because you're directly contradicting your own values. Because you're condemning those who kill for money, revenge or making an example to infuse fear of "incorrect" behavior, yet go on and kill for the same reasons. Your thief example has nothing to do with it, as the decision to use taxpayers money and the way to do so doesn't come from the criminal, but from the goverment/society.
"It's useless because it doesn't do anything to repair the damage done" - there is no repair for murder. Why waste time, space, and money trying to attain it?
That's exactly my point... What's done is done. Killing these criminals won't bring the victims back, nor will it erase the damage done to those who lived through the consequences. What you can do is look at the future, and try to either rehabilitate said person, or keep him/her locked so there's no more harm done. Killing them as a way to "even things out" is just revenge, pure and simple.
"The way I see it, the purpose of punishment regarding the law should be to prevent further damage and rehabilitate the infractor as much as possible."
This is embarrassingly silly. Yep, let's just prevent further damage - so it's okay that Bernie Madoff stole millions from clients. Let's not make him repay it. Let's just make sure he doesn't do it again!
Fair enough... Let's just separate financial punishments from civil/physical ones here, and perhaps include the action of repaying the money as a way to prevent further damage (as those actions keep having consequences afterwards) and as part of the rehabilitation. Maybe doing some community service too, if he can't afford to return what he took. I'm not against all this, as I'm not against restricting freedom either, as long as there's an actual reason for it. A productive one, as I mentioned before.
There is no rehabilitation for non-insane criminals. They don't need help. They are evil scum.
Evil ? I don't see things in those absolute terms... And there's no rational argument here.