erratio

Again, I hear where you're coming from - I simply cannot think of a better method of dealing with the problem. It comes back to the whole preventative vs. punitive issue. If it's punitive then I agree with you completely. How does killing one person make up for the fact that they had murdered another? (Note the difference in terminology; I reveal my bias) If the motivation is preventative, however, then I think it's a great idea. Sure, some people may still murder others, but significantly fewer will do so if they know that they are going to get killed for doing it in return. For that to work, however, it's necessary to follow through - even if you run the risk of killing one innocent for every hundred guilty. I don't think those odds are so bad, you'll excuse me for saying so.

And as for war - while I'm not trying to move this thread away from its topic, the killing of civilians in a war is a small price to pay for the greater goal. That's not to say that it's not terrible (war, itself, is despicable), but there are worse things that may occur to the world if you lose. Imagine what the world may have been like had Hitler triumphed over the allied nations. Is the prevention of that world not worth dying for? Is the reduction in murdered innocents not worth the judge-ordained death of one every so often? Still fewer people dying, whichever way you look at it.