[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
Because your property is not worth a human life.

[/ QUOTE ]
So alot of people are referring to "a life" not being worth "the money", but I would say the robber's life is not worth any money. Or more precisely, he is worth negative money - in that his existance is a drain on the rest of society functioning as we would deign appropriate. His violent crimes carry a societal cost.

[ QUOTE ]
I think one more dead violent crook is no loss to the world at all, but that doesn't mean it's up to random individuals to do it

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there someone else more qualified? More than the person who just had their life-threatened and their money stolen? Also, use of the word "random" here is objectionable.

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe otherwise, then it logically follows that you believe a sentence of death to be an appropriate sentence for a convicted armed robber.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay!

I mean, if there was some way to be certain that no one was ever wrongly convicted, I think I would be. But human memory sucks, people ID the wrong guy, can't remember details, people plant evidence, etc. Which is why shooting the guy at the scene is optimal - you can be certain that you have the right guy, and avoid the risk of the guy: a) committing any more crimes, b) getting off on some technicality, c) obscuring evidence, or d) avoiding capture.

With upwards of 4 billion people on the planet, I am not opposed to some culling.