I'm sort of ambivalent about the death penalty, and I'm more than skeptical about punishment-based behavior mitigation in general.
That said, whatever the severity of penalty you assign to direct forms of (mass) murder ought to apply to the indirect forms when they're scaled up far enough.
Like, that capital represents the real possibility of avoiding starvation for a certain percent of the population (many of them children).
Similarly, I look at folks like the Sacklers and think that whatever we do to a school shooter ought to be done to them. They knew full well what the impact of their behavior was going to be and thought, "fuck 'em. Let 'em die". That's just as bad if not worse than a troubled teen picking up an assault rifle.
That said, whatever the severity of penalty you assign to direct forms of (mass) murder ought to apply to the indirect forms when they're scaled up far enough.
Like, that capital represents the real possibility of avoiding starvation for a certain percent of the population (many of them children).
Similarly, I look at folks like the Sacklers and think that whatever we do to a school shooter ought to be done to them. They knew full well what the impact of their behavior was going to be and thought, "fuck 'em. Let 'em die". That's just as bad if not worse than a troubled teen picking up an assault rifle.