Couldn't one argue that warfare is essentially a form of state-sponsored murder, and one that seems to get far more of a free pass than the death penalty? I'm asking only as a devil's advocate and I agree with all of your Ifs, I'm just not entirely convinced that the state is inherently murdering when there are circumstances that might cost an extremely dangerous and clearly guilty offender their life.
I can't speak for JarodRussell
, but I do think his examples have a valid context to them. Life without parole is far better in my mind as a maximum punishment for most crimes, but it could still be argued to be a death penalty. The state just won't kill you quickly.