How little the death penalty is used is one of its main problems that needs to be fixed first.

It has to be an extreme case, such as blowing up a bus full of school children or some other crime that is so disgusting, that the person doesn't deserve to live for it, but in the extreme, I do agree with the capital punishment. 

Sorry I meant people that kill more than once. And mass murders or mass shootings. It would suck for someone who got convicted but was innocent and they were killed because of it. So as terrible as it sounds id want that "well this is the 2nd time hes been convicted. He must be a killer" 

Some can, anothers cannot. Psychopaths will likely almost never be able to reform, child pedophiles had a high rate of remission into the crime, etc.

Rape on kid & murder on them should be death sentence for me...

And i hardly see, why honest ppl have to pay for ppl in jail, they should hard work for make their food and everthing.

This is another one too in which I would agree with the death sentence.

I'm pretty surprised that more people here support the death pentalty than are opposed to it. On resetera, it's 75% to like 20% against.

Like I said its a case by case basis. Some are too dangerous to keep alive

The reason the death penalty "costs more" than most lengthy prison terms (at least here in the US) is because of the endless legal and appeals process that is associated with it, plus the fact that unless it's an exceptional case, such as the OKC bombing with Timothy McVeigh (occurred in April '95, was convicted and later put to death in June 2001), it usually takes decades in many cases before the actual sentence is carried out.

I for one am in favor of it in such cases of extreme violence and mass murder where there is zero doubt who committed the crime because some folks are just irredeemable and should not be allowed to draw breath on this earth for their actions.

I know many on the other side argue both that 1) the death penalty is inhumane / shouldn't be left up to the government to decide who dies, and 2) life in prison is a more fitting punishment than a (not so) swift death.

My counterargument to those points is 1) we can kill people on the battlefield, both combatant and civilian, who have committed far less crimes than those usually put on Death Row, so it's no more inhumane in that respect. Also, many people who side against the death penalty tend to support both abortion and end-of-life treatment for those deemed terminally ill, aka "death with dignity". If you have no issues with allowing a mother the choice of terminating her unborn fetus or allowing a young cancer patient to check out early, why the issue with sticking a needle in a cold blooded killer's arm, or just simply using the same methods that are used on the terminally ill to "peacefully" end their suffering?

And 2) if life in prison with no chance of parole is in your opinion a tougher / more fitting punishment than a (not so) swift death, then that contradicts the argument that the death penalty is cruel and inhumane since we've established it's no worse than abortion or end of life treatment for the terminally ill. Plus, you really think people like Charles Manson for example are "suffering" in prison? He's a bigger celebrity today than he was back when he was first convicted in the 70s, and the longer you keep these people in prison, the longer their notoriety and infamy is sustained in public life. Imagine if Osama Bin Laden for example was captured alive and was thrown in Gitmo or some federal / international jail for life as his punishment. We'd be seeing this guy regularly in the news for decades to come where he'd be free to espouse his radical views and be seen as an inspiration for jihadis everywhere.

No. It's a huge waste of money. We could have the convict work forcibly and make money instead, which is also a bigger punish.