No, the execution of a single prisoner is not morally acceptable.

In the case at hand, there

are two principles that suggest that killing is not morally justifiable.
St. Paul established the Pauline concept, which states that it is not morally permitted to
do evil in order for good to ensue. He stated that whether anything is good or terrible is
determined by the principle rather than the outcome. Wanting to take the pauline principle as an
example, killing a person even for self-defense in a war is not morally acceptable, and he claims
that if god plans for you to live, you keep living, and if he plans for you to die, you die, but
killing another person is not morally correct, which isn't really relevant to this question. In this
situation, the inmates must be threatened in order to obtain information that could save many
lives. This can only be accomplished by killing one of the detainees, and the information was
revealed, resulting in the saving of many lives. In this scenario, the action taken, namely saving
people's lives, is morally beneficial in and of itself, satisfying the first principle of double impact.
The negative outcome was not intended, — in other words, it was not intended to murder a
person, but he was slain to get the knowledge, thereby satisfying the second principle of double
impact. The positive result must not be a direct result of the bad result, i.e., murdering a person
did not directly result in a good outcome, it also only resulted in collecting information to save
lives, thus satisfying the third principle of twofold effect. The good outcome must be equal to the
bad result, in this case, the good result occurred only when the terrible result occurred, therefore,
the good result was directly proportional to the bad result, satisfying the fourth principle of
double effect. As a result, killing a prisoner in order to obtain information that aids in the saving
of lives was morally acceptable in this situation because doing evil caused in good results even
though the bad result, the evil, was not directly meant. This becomes acceptable when all of the
principle guidelines of double effect are considered.
The double effect concept seeks to provide some criteria for determining if completing an
activity in the pursuit of a good end can also result in bad outcomes. That is, standards for
determining whether or not undertaking an action that has a desirable outcome but also has bad
consequences is morally justified. For instance, in this question, killing a prisoner in order to
obtain knowledge that saves the lives of a large number of people is a good result, but killing a
person is a poor result. If an activity is ethically permissible, it must meet four conditions,
according to this principle.
As a result, the act being committed and the anticipated result must be good and free of
any bad intents. As every human being has value, killing one prisoner is ethically wrong because
his life has value as well, thus killing is a morally awful act.