Lh, several years ago, I believe that you would kill to protect your family. Have you changed your mind?
Don, in my view, we have the right to take the life of another if we do so to protect our own life or the lives of our families. This has been discussed before with much hair-splitting about how a non-lethal way should be found. Some people simply cannot conceive of a situation where the death of a predator is the onlyway to prevent further predation.
Be that as it may.
The state acts as a proxy for the citizens that it is protecting. When it executes a murderer, it does so to protect those citizens from further murders.
This is the ONLY way that protection can be guaranteed.
Prisoners escape. Appeals judges with rocks in their heads let them go. (I'll get heat for that one).
We, as citizens, are not allowed to execute those who have harmed us except at the moment of the commision of the violent act. After that, it is up to the State to mete out punishment. In the case of violent murder, the only way to guarantee that the murderer does not escape to do violent murder again, is to execute him/her.
If you know of another, foolproof way for the State to protect it's citizens from murderers like Paul Hill, speak out.

troll