Because its a killing recognized and sanctioned by law, it is not technically murder. You could only call it murder in a loose understanding of the word. Headsmen are generally only executed during a breakdown law, not as a result of strict carrying out of the law; they are generally given a warrant protecting them from retribution by a judge. "Eye for an eye" is not how things are run most of the time. Typically, stories about violent consequences for those associated with capital punishment seem to be about those who were actually making the decisions (like Robespierre during the reign of terror) - the "judge and/or jury" so to speak rather than "the executioner." Executioners were subject to being shunned by society in the past, but that seems to be a non issue in America (for example, I saw an interview with a former executioner at Huntsville, and he said he gave up the job on account of his personal dislike for the death penalty).
I'm against it because it's wrong to kill anyone and if you execute someone, you are technically commiting murder. That means the executor could be executed.
Moreover, if you were just against the death penalty because the executioner could technically be killed for killing, the correct thing would probably be to not kill the executioner for killing, not to stop him from killing.
Edited by Hawkeye Hank Hatfield, 01 June 2012 - 10:14 PM.