I think it’s pretty straightforwardly reasonable to say that we should above all else, remove their ability to continue to do harm. There’s going to be a range of views on exactly what that should look like - mostly based on your view of how punitive we should be. Options would include confinement, exile, medication, lobotomy, and execution.

Personally, I think ending someone through death, lobotomy, and the like is unnecessarily barbaric. Confinement in one form or another seems like the most reasonable option, and I think consentual alternatives are debatable.

Your prescription seems to assume that either:

1. Everyone can be rehabilitated, which no society has ever achieved.

2. That it’s preferable to push a well understood risk to people’s lives back into the community than it is to keep that risk in the care of the state where they can’t kill more people.

…but you strike me as too sensible to prescribe that kind of thing, so what have I missed?

Who will pay their bribes to secure a healthy pipeline of human suffering because that’s good for their investors donations to encourage more great policies and responsible governance.