Okay, I'll bite. Three sentences is all I'll allow myself.
1. A civilized society does not exterminate its citizens.
2. The word civilized implies that all individuals in it have civil rights.
3. In the Middle Ages, angry mobs that beat others to death would, themselves, not be defined as civilized.
I would ordinarily call you a name at this point, but I will extend you civility. Plus, the last time I did that I received an infraction.
That is all.
1: The death penalty has been around in civilized societies, reserved for those individuals who do not act civilized, so exterminating undesirable "citizens" is far from unprecedented, in fact it has been a time honored tradition for thousands of years. It has been practiced because a more effective solution to preventing the uncivilized behavior of the offenders is not known. If a cost effective reform technique was known, it would be used. An essential part of citizenship is acting like a respectable member of society. It isn't fair to extend benefits to individuals who are in civilization if those individuals aren't willing to do their part, is it? If people do their part to support something, they deserve the rewards. You reap what you sow. If individuals sow consideration towards others, then that is what they deserve to reap. If individuals sow inconsideration for others then they deserve to reap inconsideration directed towards themselves. That is only FAIR.
It isn't fair to be fair to others who are unwilling to be fair to others, because it isn't fair to the people that the unfair people will be unfair towards. The laws of civilization exist to protect those members interested in being civilized. In order to protect those who want to be civilized, you must protect them from others who want to be uncivilized, by preventing those unfair individuals from being unfair to others by any means necessary. The most peaceful methods should always be preferred, but if they don't work, there should be no limit to the severity of methods used, because the goal is to protect those who WANT to be civilized as well as possible.
The point of civilization is NOT to provide a free for all giving individuals the ability to have the maximum freedom to be able to get away with doing whatever they want, even when it costs other people THEIR quality of life. That is what being in civilization means to many individuals, and since that was never the point of civilization in the first place, it is logically wrong and should not be tolerated, because it undermines the very point of having civilization in the first place.
Protection of those in civilization from those who don't want to be civilized in civilization must COME FIRST, in order to best protect the quality of life of those who want to be civilized, and no cost to the uncivilized in that civilization should be too high in order to protect that. It isn't as if those uncivilized individuals have no choice in being uncivilized,and so in order to protect the TRULY CIVILIZED, those individuals need to be forced to get in line or else.
If there was a more effective method that was more gentle that protected the civilized citizens as well, then that should be used, but there isn't. The uncivilized can try their luck in the wild if they don't want to be civilized.
You can't have it both ways. You can't want to not be civilized AND be in civilization. It doesn't make sense, unless you a predator, which some individuals clearly are, and they TAKE ADVANTAGE of the benefits of being in civilization in order to be more successful at a life of preying on others than they would be in the wild, and that is not fair to the truly civilized, because again, it undermines the point of civilization.
The point of civilization is not to empower all people to better do what they want, the point is to protect people who want to be civilized and to empower civilized behavior ONLY.
That covers one.
Two: Only the civil rights of people who want to truly have civil rights by being civil should be allowed to have civil rights, because those are the only ones who CAN. It is impossible to extend civil rights to individuals who don't even believe in civil rights in the first place. The uncivilized don't believe in civil rights, because they don't believe in being civil, as they don't believe in other people's civil rights, and they don't believe in exercising civil rights themselves. By not exercising civil rights, by being uncivil, they effectively take away their own civil rights from themselves. They believe in civil rights, so why give them or allow them to have what they don't need or believe in in the first place. They only reason they like civil rights is to use them as a tool to better exploit other people.
THE UNCIVILIZED SEE CIVIL RIGHTS AS A WEAKNESS.
Civilization is a privilege, and not a right, because it takes effort to maintain a civilization. It doesn't appear out of thin air. If individuals seek to undermine it or destroy it, why protect them? Why give them rights they don't really believe in in the first place? What's the point? To allow them a better forum to exploit others? That is all that the rules of civilization allow for uncivilized individuals. Uncivilized individuals are too dangerous to the civilized to allow them to exist in society. They just cause too much chaos and destruction.
Three. You have a point. The mob would attack to rectify unfairness, and quite frankly, the scalper or other swindler or thief would KNOW that they were being unfair and that a lot of people wouldn't like it, and so what did they expect? They expected that people wouldn't get mad enough to seek vengeance? They expected that they should be able to take advantage of others without repercussions? They believe they had a "right" to do so, because they believed themselves cleverer than others and so deserved the fruits of exploiting them. They were wrong. If they wanted to be treated with consideration, they should have first no been INCONSIDERATE to others. If they wanted to be respected they should have not disrespected others first. Respect is EARNED. Respect is also a two way street.
Still, how severe are the methods that must be used to absolutely guarantee that those considerate people in civilization not be exploited by others who believe in being inconsiderate in order to get ahead?
It's the underlying question, and my answer is that no cost to the evil is too high to protect the innocent, as long as the the most peaceful methods are employed first.
If the evil are willing to to stop being evil with a gentle nudge, then great. If they need to be shoved a little, that is their fault for being so stubborn. If they need to be stopped by more extreme methods, that they asked for by refusing to stop being evil. The more stubbornly one refuses to stop committing evil, the more evil they are. The more evil they are, the more extreme will be the methods needed to stop them.
The evil can always be good at any time, and turn away from evil so that they don't NEED to be forced and don't need to suffer the great unpleasantness of more extreme measures. It's all up to them. It's perfectly fair. Because it is perfectly fair, I think it is civilized.