Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[bennyboy]

The problem with justice is that it lessons the intensity of our efforts to prevent.  It gives the illusion that there can be balance in the world, and that we are the bringers of balance, through punishment.

I recommend treating crime prevention as a procedural issue, not a justice issue.  A dead man is much cheaper, and has an infinitely lower chance of recommitting his crimes.  Making tax payers support this guy for $50k / year or whatever in order to torture him psychologically when he can just be removed-- I'd rather have improved health care and a few less pot holes.

It's actually MORE costly to taxpayers to execute someone than it is to incarcerate them long term. I mean, unless you want to scrap all that pesky, pricey stuff like lawyers, evidence, appeals...you know - 'rights'.

Boru

That's not a problem with execution. That's a problem with the execution process. I could (and probably would) take out a convicted child rapist for about $10.

And if we're so big on rights, I would think that a life sentence, being almost as life-ruining as an execution, should be subject to all those same expenses. But we seem pretty comfortable with depriving a (black) man of his liberty until his existence ends if he takes about 3 wrong turns in life.

To get back to the OP: criminals of war. I don't particularly think we NEED justification. If we are lucky enough to win a war, we can string up whomever we want on a pretext-- the purpose of the pretext being to give us an excuse to pat ourselves on the back for our moral virtue more than anything else.