I guess you don't understand that concept of justified killing/murder? A well known form of it is self defense.

He probably does understand the concept of that but justified killing/murder has absolutely zero to do with murdering someone as punishment

In extreme cases I'm all for taking all their organs and donating them to people who need them. Those may turn out to be killers, cure cancer or live normal/simple lives.

Bottom line, for me killing them the way we do now or keeping them in prison where they can have a decent live and corrupt others (or even kill more) is wrong and needs to change. They took lives so they should at least try to repay their dept to society by saving some lives in return.

Forgot about that. Makes perfect sense to me.

First i live in switzerland, no death sentence here, for the story, here last few years we got a guy who raped a girl and got 6 years of jail... than got out, found back the girl raped her again and killed her....

Sorry but guy like this should just die !

For me there is 3 case where the death sentence could apply :

1) More than 2 murder (i don't talk about self defense)

2) Rapping girl on purpose.

3) Pedophilia

BUT, i would prefere a system where the guilty work every days for 15h for the society all their live ! i personnaly would be more afraid to have no hope to a better live than a you just gonna die....

Here in jail, you can have TV (i know i refused to do army  for personal reason).... i mean common its almost some vaccation...

Good you don't know, you wouldn't like it...

i must myself admit, certain countries do exagerate the rehabilitation.

I personnalz believe the government is equally somewhat responsable for the commited crime. The most important part of any security system is preventation, and there are other methods than setting an examlpe. Reduced crime is one of the best arguments for higher social spendings for example.

Speaking in terms of practicality, I don't really see the point. There's no proof that it reduces murder, it's far more expensive to kill someone than to just imprison them for life, and there's always the chance that we'll kill someone who was wrongfully convicted. An imprisoned person can at least be released, but the dead can't be brought back.

So I don't really see the point in it.

While this may A bit much, here is an exemple:

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12

The main point to be made is that a loose criminal punishment program does not encourage more crime.

in this case, it may be just a bit too much. But the idea is presented in the exageration.

The death sentence should only be used in the case of murder... here are some drawbacks off the top of my head to keeping murderers alive.

The murderer can escape from prison and possibly kill again. 

Life in prison isn't much of a punishment: the murderer gets to live the rest of his life with free food, medical care, and shelter. The murderer can potentially gain more liberties in prison for good behavior and the murderer can be visited by his friends and family.

I'm for it. Let's kill some people! And why not air it on TV and have the world vote on whether someone dies or not.