It has been suggested in the past that if I believe in humane punishment for the offender, then I lack sympathy for the victim, and that is untrue.
I mean in any case where there is a victim and the offender, the victim's needs always should be addressed first, and every possible means toward healing should be offered.
However, I do not see putting to death or dismembering a perpetrator as a means to that healing. It is in fact an act of revenge and does nothing toward healing.
Even if a criminal is dismembered or killed at the hands of the state, there is still nothing gained for the victim.
Pleasure at seeing someone dead is not a means to healing but a disordered way of thinking that I believe is unique to humans - killing for pleasure.
Animals may kill out of self defense. But there is no reason for humans to kill other humans. There is no reason to enact the death penalty if the offender is secured behind bars. It is at that point - pleasure killing. And it's disgusting.
The victims needs are the most important.
However, correction supposes that someone who acted inhumanly has a means to re-enter the human community. A killer may never get that chance and for public safety, may need to be locked away for life.
But that further bolsters my argument about this -- nothing is gained. No one is helped.
Also, the perpetrator, if killed off, will not know the gravity of his offenses.
So since it's cheaper to lock him up for life anyway, why do we insist on spending billions more on 'pleasure killing'?