Yes, stick to saying its unjust. I can see that. It's not murder though.
I do think torture should be allowed, i think there can be a place for that, absolutely. But like execution there's no need to be cruelly inhumane about it. I hate to bring it up, because you refuse to acknowledge it, but there's a spectrum here too. Where do you draw the line is the question? You'd say. NOPE, NEVER. IT'S HORRIBLE, I WONT LISTEN, MY VIEW IS RIGHT. But I'd say for instance that tickling is okay, however skinning a person and salting them is not. The line is somewhere between the two. Just like there's a line between (and beyond) free and dead .
Doesn't that make sense to you? Do you really need to say "hang on, you say tickling is ok, what's your justification for this?". That's your argument. You want justification for what's really just common sense? I'm not conducting research on the issue or investigating all this for the govt, i'm commenting on a post on fucking reddit. I feel no need to justify everything I believe. Conversations and discussions work better when you don't have to justify every a priori argument. I have better things to do with my life.
What gives me the right? Um, what gives you the right to get what you want? You think you can justify your position, well so do I? I don't believe your position is justified either. I believe the answer is somewhere in the middle (of not just our two views, but many many others too). Because I believe matters of ethics, morals, and agreed personal behavior, responsibility, their governance and societies reactions to these essentially come down to compromise. Who'd have thought things aren't black and white? Good and evil. Right and wrong.
Why might the state have the right? because that's the society you live in. Someone didn't just pull it out of the hat. And its a fluid system. Things move and change. That's one of the reasons why I'd like to keep the options on the table. One of the things the founding fathers got right was a little inbuilt ambiguity in how your country should be setup (big/small govt, federal/state, who has the right for what - a lot of it is up in the air so it can be debated, so there can be compromise). I think I have more faith in your system answering such issues than you do.
If you have a nationally imposed sanction that things will only be done one way you might well miss out on something on something good another state would have worked out on their own. I think that's a good system. Let the states (or countries around the world) experiment. If stuff works it should spread to others. If it doesn't it probably won't. But leave the options on the tables. If states not executing people have better success than others that will take over. If not, oh well, you either win or you learn. But as you know, its heading towards non-capital options, but that doesn't mean I'd like to see the option removed altogether, I'd just like to see greater care exercised and a change in where such nations draw the line for execution.