I disagree. The bad guy inflicted pain and suffering on people who had done nothing wrong. We are inflicting pain and suffering on someone who deserves it.
I never claimed it did, but in any case I am not entirely sure that this question is meaningful.
I never claimed it did, but actually, since you ask, yes, I have known a lot of people who would find this process very cathartic, even if they were not participating but just knew it had happened.
For the record, whenever these debates arise, I am thinking of two cases (both far more famous here in the UK than elsewhere). The first is that of the Moors Murderers, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, who tortured, killed and buried young children. Given where and when they operated, I could well have been one of their victims. They terrorised all of Lancashire, and scandalised the entire country. For the life of me, when there are good, decent people who are hungry or cold, I can’t see why the taxpayer ever wasted a penny providing any facilities at all for these appalling, evil people. And I knew (and know) as many men (fathers) as you could ask for who would have loved just ten minutes along in a room with the pair of them. Hindley has died, but Brady is still around. It’s not too late. And Brady actually wants to die, so where’s the loss?
The second is the case of Peter Sutcliffe, the so-called Yorkshire Ripper. I was based in Yorkshire when he was terrorising an entire county, and when literally every woman in his preferred target age range was living in more or less perpetual fear. It wasn’t just a case of being afraid to go out at night - they didn’t even feel safe in their homes. They used to put pots and pans balanced on the inside window ledges, as an improvised ‘alarm’ should he try to break in through a window. Again, I ca’t see the point in keeping him fed and clothed when there are so many people who deserve taxpayer’s money more than he does. I’m quite sure that even now, many years after he was caught, a single advert in the Yorkshire Post would bring forth plenty of volunteers who, given ten minutes alone with Sutcliffe, would enthusiastically relieve the taxpayer of the burden.
Apologies for the hijack.