Sound principles
Easy to mock the ancient Judaic laws, but the principles are quite sound.
Basically if an animal kills someone, then in order to stop a repeat event, the animal should be destroyed. If the owner doesn't do this and it kills again, then the owner is held responsible (for the life that has been lost).
The death penalty was required for murder and when, by omission of action by said owner a (second) death occured, this was deemed to be the same (legally) as the owner committing murder.
The underlying principle is simply that human life is held to be more important than animal life.
Sounds very similar to the legal principles we operate today: - i.e. dog kills child, dog is killed, owner of dog is held culpable by law. Or corporate manslaughter. Duty of care..... Don't here any mocking here.
Except in this case, there seems to be an exception because the animal is 'wild'. It's a fair point to make as to whether such an animal should be in captivity (personally, I don't think such animals should be kept in captivity) BUT this animal has killed 3 people and whoever has responsibility for it needs to either destroy it or release it.
And, given it's track record, someone (CEO Seaworld perhaps?) needs to be held legaly accountable for what happened. If they were, you might not find them so willing to keep such a creature in the first place.
As i said, sound principles but...... mock on, until it happens again.