Haven't seen this on here in a while. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention.

Are you for it or against it? Why?

For it.

Prisons are already struggling with to many prisoners, killing some of that scum will just be more economical.

Of course it would only apply to the worst crimes....

Here in the U.K, capital punishment was in effect abolished in 1969; it was stopped for murder, but remained for really rare offences such as assassination of reigning monarch or burning of a Royal Navy shipyard. It was truly abolished (ie taken off the statute books) around about the turn of the century in accordance to the European Convention of Human Rights.

Myself, I'm against capital punishment, if a mistake has been made, the defendant cannot return to ordinary life because of the obvious fact that he/she is dead.  Such a cock up on a monumental scale occurred during the 1st World War.  Basically, many men became shell shocked while on the front line, as it was accepted as a condition the army saw it as cowardice.  The punishment for cowardice as death by firing squad and I'll leave it to you to work out what happened to thousands of innocent soldiers.

In the US, I am against the federal government executing people. The Constitution forbids the federal government from taking your life. States can do whatever they want however, as the US Constitution only limits the federal government. Each state has a right to make there own call on what there Constitution says.

As a personal postion, I have no problem with it. If you committed horrific crimes, you have given up your opportunity for me to care about you.

I guess the only issue I have with it from a moral position, is sometimes they are wrongfully accuses, and killed when they didn't commit the crime. This is far less then activists would want you to believe, but I am sure it has happened a few times.

306 soldiers were shot for cowardice in world war one

Again, an example of exaggeration by those apposed to it.

Government killing a human: an eye for an eye. Religious state sanctioned murder is draconian and belongs to a barbaric past that does not value human rights. 

In China human rights are limited in China. China frequently uses the death penalty besides murder: economic sabboteur, stealing, rape, drug smuggling, spying and treason can all incur the death penalty. In China there is not much of a chance of having a fair trial: China is a one party government. 

Islamic nations frequently use capital punishment when Islamic law is broken and Shari'a law requires the death penalty. Interpretation of Islamic law encourages the death penalty should be carried out in certain events. 

Third world nations under a brutal dictatorship frequently uses capital punishment and abuse human rights. 

The measurement of how civilised a nation is where there is a democracy, does not use the death penalty, most US staes do not have the death penalty: only a handful still use the death penalty, most European nations and western liberal  democracies are against it. 

A life time in prison with no parol is much more of punishment than a quick execution without trial. Capital punishment is too easy even for the most serious offenders. 

Nazi Germany,  Soviet Russia, Mao China frequently used the death penalty for enemies of the state and a quick execution was carried out after a show trial with no legal defense. 20 to 30 million people were executed under each of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. 

For it in theory, against it in practice. There are people who deserve to die, certainly, but I don't really trust a government not to fuck that up, and it's my understanding that it's more expensive to execute someone than it is to imprison them for life - which sounds so stupid and counterintuitive that it must be true.

I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what you mean.

Edit: and you did

I did!

Those who support it. How would you feel if an innocent man was sentenced to death? Even sending one man to his death is reason enough that

Despite how good technology may become there is always the chance of making a mistake and  corrupt government/CIA/police planting evidence to incriminate a suspect. 

Imagine if your: father, son, brother or friend was innocent of the crime and was put to death? No innocent man should face the death penalty. 

In the past there have been a number of innocent people who have been executed and they were innocent of all charges. no evidence and no DNA. Witch hunts/hearsay, plantation of evidence was enough to have a person framed for crimes they did not commit. 

Watching a man cook in an electric chair, hung and his neck breaks, face the firing squad or a number of other ways of execution is not a pretty site. It is still murder. 

In Middle East they frequently throw stones at a person until they are dead. Bloody mess. What if that person was innocent and framed for a crime they did not commit? Too late for that poor man.