Salukigirl, the argument is, killing a sexual abuser so that that particular sexual abuser cannot abuse again. There's no discussion of whether it is morally "right" or not.

It only costs more money to put an inmate to death because of the legal system and number of chances we give to appeal; it does not literally cost more; not all states costs are the same. For the sake of this discussion, I think we're just literally killing them, no appeal. One sexual abuse strike and you're out. The "purpose" is to keep other possible people from this one person's abuse from being abused; not to stop additional abuse "out there". If each sexual abuser could be totally stopped after only one abuse, there would be fewer abuses, not because of any "lesson" it would teach to others but because the sheer number of abusers would be dramatically cut. An abuser would not be able to abuse his/her subsequent children, etc. so more non-abused children would be being raised and there wouldn't be as much "passing down" of the abuse dynamic. Not as many children would "learn" it.

I also don't think anyone is suggesting this is practical or doable or even a good idea; it's just a spur-of-the-moment "wish" thing, an imaginative fantasy. Sexual abuse (all abuse) is too complex to judge in an all-or-nothing sense (how do you judge date rape when it's a he said/she said affair and is one going to kill a 22 year old for having consensual sex with a 14 year old who lied about her age?) and killing one's father/brother/spouse/mother, etc. would not be very helpful to a survivor's emotional mindset I don't think; kind of a cutting off of the nose to spite the face scenario.