[closed] Does a murderer have a right to life?

This came up in a previous question: "Are rights natural?" John P. wrote three questions in his answer, asking if a thief has a right to what he holds; if a mugger has a right to be left alone; if a murderer has a right to life. He said all of these answers are no. I only disagree with the last answer. I believe it is wrong under many contexts to take a life, no matter how ridiculous and "bleeding-heart liberal" is sounds. War and self-defense are exceptions. If you're being provoked by an aggressor who has the intention to kill you, you should do what is necessary. But if I was to defend myself, I'd try to incapacitate him, not kill him. I don't like death. I think it's terrible that people kill each other, but I don't think the proper punishment is to continue killing. Life in prison without parole is the worst thing to give a criminal. I understand that the first two crimes that John asked about can be paid back financially, but murder cannot. You can't pay for a life. All life is invaluable. And in saying that, I'm saying that the life of the murderer is also invaluable. He can still contribute something to society, no matter how notorious he may be. I could be wrong in saying a murderer shouldn't be executed because he took something of high value and he can't and won't pay back, and indeed their are many good arguments for the death penalty, but I choose life, not death.