If putting a known murderer to death is state sponsored murder why is locking him up for life not state sponsored kidnapping? If we lock them away for the remainder of their lives with less than 100% absolute and complete certainty of their guilt how is that morally superior to putting them to death?

There are plenty of cases where killers have either killed others while in prison, including guards, or killed again upon release. What justice is there for those victims? Should we say that is just the price we should expect to pay for being so civilized and morally superior?

Maybe we should be like Norway where Anders Breivik, the killer of 75 or so mostly kids, will get a maximum of 21 years in what is essentially an apartment with locks on the outside of the doors. He was seen on TV doing the deed and admitted it as well. Should he have the chance to get out and possibly do it again? I guess the Norwegians do.

As for the "right to life" crack. Cold blooded murderers have, by their actions, forfeited that right.

We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.