I agree completely. This one part of a quote of Justice Stevens is quite amazing: “As for deterrence, he said that because such people were more likely to act on impulse than were other people, the death penalty’s existence was less likely to come to their minds to inhibit them from committing capital crimes.” I found this easily enough, even from google, which points out the death penalty isn’t a deterrent: https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-scientific-consensus-that-the-death-penalty-does-not-deter/ And what kind of ground are we standing on when one doesn’t kill one person in order to not allow another person to kill you, or someone else? Which I’m not saying to excuse killing someone: anyone, including the person that’s supposed to be deterred by believing killing another person for just means is how one creates discipline and a working society, and if he doesn’t murder someone, he gets to demand someone be executed. You put forth the idea that executing someone is a deterrent, and you quake people who are trained to do exactly that, kill people to prevent people from killing people. It’s also against human nature to want to kill another person, that’s not natural. In the army, they have to brain wash soldiers to see the enemy as inhuman; that’s also what corporate media does with a whole range of people, cultures, and even countries, when they need to paint something as evil. That for a population that already thinks being alarmist is what maintains safety. People who are brainwashed to not feel safe unless they see some danger at large they are actively fighting against, whether it’s really there or not. That’s all seen as necessary for societal well being, when in reality it does exactly the opposite; it creates the problems it says it’s exposing while denying how it’s causing them, and then covers that up.