The power of the rich (or bourgeoisie I imagine given the terms are used similarly) is primarily in their money, and sense people have of those specific people having political legitimacy (or in their connections to the people that have that legitimacy). As such, if they were stripped of their money and political, military, or corporate leadership positions, and the positions of their friends and relatives stripped the same, as would presumably happen if some kind of revolution against them were successfully carried out, then they would be largely powerless, and therefore a scenario where they are just left in the street to cry about it, one where they are imprisoned but not killed, and one where they are executed in the most brutal way imaginable, are all functionally the same, in terms of the ability of the deposed rich to overthrow whatever new system exists. As such, specifically aiming for that last option is simply needlessly cruel. If one is a revolutionary, one’s goal should be to enact change, not indulge in one’s darker desires to commit brutality or revenge.

Further, if one hypothetically was part of a successful revolution, and in a position to decide these things, then one should consider that enacting a reign of terror or equivalent, like this appears to imply, sets the precedent in the mind of the people that in your new system, might makes right, and that those in power will enact violence against those they personally dislike/disagree with. This precedent does not make a good basis for a free, fair, or pleasant society, and makes it highly likely that your new system will end up functionally the same as the old one, merely with different people at the top.