Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou
You weren't arguing for arbitrary killing by the state, but you did make the case for it in your arguments with the notion that the state has the unquestionable right to kill
I have made no case for arbitrary killing.

The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.

Were it life in solitary confinement, I might agree that it's torture- but lifetime solitary confinement fell out of popular practice long ago as far as I know. I argue that prisons should be harsher, but I don't see any benefit to driving prisoners insane in absolute solitude- nor do I see any benefit to justify killing them.
The benefit to capital punishment is it provides redress. This is the basis for punishment.

So we're back to this again? Killing on the battlefield is not equivalent to killing defenseless prisoners. I can't honestly believe you don't see a difference.
State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.

Based on that, we would have no disagreement. But I part ways when you claim that a state has an absolute right to kill and that it is moral for a state to do so regardless of the circumstances.
I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.