Luxury Yacht Company Offers Pirate-Hunting Cruises

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

I don't see how you get from stage 1. to stage 3. Your conclusion can
not be logically deduced from stage 1. alone.

Your (unspoken) stage 2. might be:

1a. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2a. It is wrong to kill people who aren't in the process of committing a crime.
3a. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

but that makes it an argument against the death penalty altogether and
I assume that is not your intention. (Can you confirm that you are
pro-death penalty?)

You could get round it by saying something like:

1b. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2b. It is wrong to pay to kill people who aren't in the process of
committing a crime.
3b. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

but in this case it isn't clear why 2b. is true and not 2a.; you are obliged
to explain/justify 2b. without justifying 2a. or leave it as an arbitrary
premise.

Okay, now I get where you're coming from, so let me rephrase.

It is wrong to pay to kill someone, unless you are killing someone who is ATTACKING you of their own volition.