something you said...

So last time we spoke you said something to the effect of prefering a judcial system where a person, for whom it could be proven that the likelihood of offending again was exceedingly small, received no retributive punishment.  I think I'm stating that correctly.  I wonder then where you stand on the converse;  supposing that the liklihood of repeat offence could be proven to be very large, and the offence had large societal impact.  Would you prefer punishing them for the rest of their natural life, ending their life quickly, no retributive punishment, changing their brain to make them no longer a danger to society, or something else?  Furthermore, how would you rate these possibilities and your own(if you chose) on a moral scale? (as in, list most moral to least moral)