I am tempted to cease this discussion immediately, because I doubt there is any point continuing it. I cannot accept that death has any role in a civilised penal system - not even where genocide has been committed, or where the killer is a compulsive serial killer who if let loose will repeat his crimes over and over until he dies of old age.
You're welcome to that belief, but study after study shows that, in the UK at least, that unconditional rejection puts you in quite a small minority: to assert that something is inherently 'wrong' simply because a minority disagrees with it is shaky ground indeed - moreover, you seem to be getting confused between the penal system, an artificial construct intended to inflict retrospective punishment as an approximation to justice, and justice itself.

To answer your question quite simply, there are many alternative and effective ways of protecting a car from theft, so to make it a death trap is unnecessary to stop it being stolen.
I never argued that it was necessary, making that a flawed rebuttal. Yes, of course there are other options - so what?

There is absolutely no connection with the administration of justice, even where the jamming is done to prevent a crime. There are better alternatives.
I didn't say it was about administration of anything, but about soldiers defending themselves by destroying devices used to attack both them and civilians - in much the same way the RAF would shoot down Luftwaffe bombers attacking Britain. No doubt some of those shot down bombers harmed people on the ground, despite the RAF's efforts - do you think that wrong as well, that those bombers should have been allowed through unobstructed in case their pilots get harmed? The idea our troops should refrain from interfering with IRA bombs in case those planting them and those accompanying them get hurt by their own attack strikes me as beyond absurd.