Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[The Architect Of Fate]

No moral basis?

Citizens of a nation are party to the social contract, in which compliance with rules is exchanged for certain modes of support.  I agree not to steal, to harm or to kill others, and I expect the state, and the individual members of it, to extend safety of property, person and life to me.

When someone commits truly heinous acts, they have broken that contract, and have surrendered their rights to its protection. What is the moral argument for asking the state to invest taxpayer's money (money being time, and time being life, therefore spent money representing a partial loss of life of the society) to continue maintaining a contract in good faith that has already been violated by the other party?

There is nothing in the social contract that says "if you do bad stuff we have the right to indulge in a blood sacrifice and kill you for the sake of dead people and our collective need for vengeance"The social contract also applies to how we treat those who have broken it. The idea we get to become a group of savages shrieking for blood because they broke the contract or worst a group of blood merchants who get to tabulate a human life like they are livestock renders the whole notion of a social contract a farce.