No matter how bad the person you're killing is, it's still not OK to kill (except in extreme circumstances of self-defence).
Capital punishment was abolished for a reason.
I'd argue that not killing certain bad people is an immoral choice in itself, designed to absolve one's of responsibility at a great price to others.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm"
How do you know if it's really going to protect others? How do you know you can trust the motives of those that say "it's all to keep us safe?".
Did the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which let's not forget, also gave rise to IS) really save more people than if we hadn't gone to war? Given the numbers killed, I very much doubt it.
Overthrowing democratically elected governments, murdering leaders, drone strikes on hospitals, Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay... are these really the actions of a benevolent leadership?
> "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm"
Churchill, I think? Those were rather different times, and Hitler's armies were a very different threat to those we're told we've faced since and now. These days, our leaders speak much the same words, but I like it would be naive to believe them.
According to Quote Investigator[0] it's actually Richard Grenier of the Washington Times (not to be confused with the Washington Post) paraphrasing something he believed Orwell might have said.
An active terrorist who is planning the next attack is not.
And it's a distraction to point out that capital punishment is banned in some countries. Those countries still have cops that shoot criminals and they have military forces that would kill other soldiers in the event of war. Capital punishment is about depriving someone of life after they've been captured. Capturing is rarely an option in a warzone. Given that constraint, it's better that the military kill someone like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi rather than let them go free.
Countries have several good reasons to invade other countries. They can come to the defense of their allies. Or they can invade to stop genocide, such as in the Kosovo War. There's also the idea of a preemptive war, though in practice that is usually a pretext.
Well, not everywhere, and not even for that reason.
The morality of killing a prisoner who has done horrific things is not the only reason to end capital punishment. I have no moral problem with someone putting a bullet through the head of some evil thing that murdered one or more of our fellow citizens, but an honest distrust of the system we use to convict said person keeps me from supporting capital punishment.
You cannot undo capital punishment. You at least have some hope of going on if you wrongly convict someone and let them out of jail.
Not in many places in the US. And not in many, many other countries.