The easy answer then is to remove people like Nelson Mandela, once a supporter of violent struggle as head of the militarist faction of the ANC. I guess we ought to be thankful that an apartheid regime was more civilised than that.
Yes, someone could argue that he was an exception, but then how many exceptions were executed? We'll never know. They're dead.
The worst aspect of this "easy answer" is that you would kill someone for things you think they may do in future. Even if the balance of probabilities is heavily inclined that way, it's still only "probable". It's even more nebulous than a presumption of guilt, because that requires something to have already happened! We could invent a whole new category of criminals, the "pre-accused"!
Once a physical threat to society is neutralised by imprisonment we have to ask ourselves why it is that we then move on to execute them. They are no longer a threat to people, so are we killing them for what they might say (?) slippery slope, or are we just executing them to save taxpayers money? Or are we just satiating the baying mob?
Once they are neutralised by incarceration the equation has to change.
While we're at it, the irony of killing someone that "doesn't share our values" shouldn't be lost on us.
Incarcerate them and deny them a public mouthpiece. It has to be enough, otherwise we are also part of the problem. If principles are malleable then they are not principles, just suggestions, and our "values" are valueless.
LSZH34 wrote:It's no surprise people like tommy are left alone to defend UNforgivable acts of violence committed by lunatics.
Thomas is not defending the crimes of these lunatics, and it is something of a trope to conflate civilised treatment of bad people with a forgiveness of what they have done. If we're to consider ourselves civilised then we have to maintain that objectiveness no matter the provocation.