Capital punishment is not done with malice. That's the critical distinction between murder and manslaughter. Intending ahead of time that your malicious act will definitely result in death is the usual distinction between first- and second-degree murder.
OK, but how is capital punishment not done with malice? I imagine you'll say it's being done in the positive interest of society, but towards the person being executed, it seems pretty malicious.
I don't see, on a moral level, why it matters whether the person has been convicted of a crime, as to whether killing him should be regarded as malicious.
Malice requires evil intent. As long as it not done spitefully or meanfully, an execution need not be malicious.
If capital punishment is not done with spite or malice then why do they consult the victim's family when deciding whether or not to seek it? If it is truly done on the basis of the good of society or protecting innocent people from dangerous criminals then the wishes of the victims' families would be irrelevant. But whether or not it is necessary to kill the criminal to protect society is not the primary deciding factor in the US. Clearly whatever assortment of reasons why its done in the US does include some element of spite or malice. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's murder still and in general there may be exceptional circumstances where capital punishment is morally warranted but that would apply to almost no cases in the US.
Oh and stories like this say next to nothing about whether or not we should have capital punishment. They're important to a discussion of the methods at best and at worst anecdotal clickbait.
