so, by that logic, it could be argued that killing someone is more moral than incarcerating them for life, is that not correct?well, i'd agree it's a double standard *if* you adhere to a strict moral position of "life, at any cost, regardless of circumstances" - but IMO that's a distinctly vile and repulsive attitude to take and to force on other people.Of course there are. Some should never be released. Executing them sets up a double standard; it's not ok to kill, unless in self defense/ it's ok the kill bad guys because they are not fit for civilized society even when they are confined and cannot harm anyone.
death is almost incalculably more kind, humane, and moral than subjecting a consciousness to a life lived inside the US prison system.
so i'd personally find it MORE morally questionable to posit that it's not OK to kill (ie, simply release a consciousness from dealing with any of this shit anymore) but it's OK to torture a conscious mind for literal decades and deny it any shred of hope of release or escape.
Not at any cost. Self defense is not excluded. Nor is suicide if life becomes unbearable. Suicide may be a problem if it hurts loved ones.
i mean, assuming that as you stated 'if life becomes unbearable' is a scenario wherein 'life, at any cost' can be mitigated.
Life can become unbearable for anyone for any number of reasons, incarcerated or not.