Generally, I'm against it. The death penalty hasn't proven to be a deterrent to crime and the cost of executing someone is higher than incarceration.

To me, it seems pretty pointless and reeks of petty vengeance, not a desire to actually improve society.

If you really keep them in jail until they die, I really don't care. The sad thing is that's not what always happens. This however, is what the death penalty does deter:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540632/Convicted-murderers-who-were-set-free-to-kill.html

80% of all crime is caused by 20% of criminals. This means only 1 our of 5 crimes is by someone who didn't commit one before. There is little hope rehabilitation. Most people who commit a violent crime, will do it again if given the chance.

If it's murder, not sure why you would ever give them that chance.

Oh, I'm fully aware of that, which is why I'm "generally" against it. I'm not against the idea of killing someone if it's a cheaper alternative to jailing them for life and the person is truly beyond rehabilitation.

The thing is that it's not so we may as well just lock them up for eternity until a better solution comes along.

General recidivism trends are more appropriate for a discussion about the prison system (and each prison system would deserve its own discussion - the UK and the US are pretty different) rather than for a discussion about hte death penalty in particular.

Actually I'm almost totally against it, but I'm persuaded that those that are in favour of it should first accept that it should be applied in its strictest and strongest form, and up to its extreme consequences, first on themselves, even more appropriate on those that cite the Bible, as it's written right there that those that judge the others will be judged with the same measure (Matthew 7:2). Executing an innocent should be considered deliberately killing him, if he was innocent, it's obvious that the evidences weren't totally sure and any doubt was ignored with the intention of executing the suspect at any cost, to exact an easy and unjust revenge. And every argument I read up until now minimizing the execution of innocents made me want to puke, as it was clearly inspired by a lust for blood and vengeance at any cost, even of killing innocents, I read in those arguments no lesser homicide intent than in those that they would want to prosecute.

This said, I could maybe accept death penalty only for the most heinous crimes and only if there is 100% certainty of guilt, 0% possibility of error and no mitigating circumstances at all.

Islamophobic!? Naw your just Westernophic, staring at our porn watching our women expose it, thats my mofo freedoms you better let go of em! They belong in my country you'll never get hold of em!

I'm against it. I don't think governments can effectively implement it without completely screwing up and if they do execute someone who's innocent then it becomes state funded murder. If it is implemented I would assume it would be for only the worst offenders, but I don't trust any goverment to implement such a system and know when to draw the line. For one thing society would constantly need that hypothetical line to be moved as viewpoints and culture change with time. Studies show it doesn't even work as a deterrent.

Actual (and full) life imprisonment for the harshest criminal imo. Let them rot.

I'm a liberal for the death penalty.  If you did something so heinous that others would consider putting you to death for your crimes, then you deserve it.  And with the level of technology we have today, we have great accuracy in finding the true criminal.

I'm for the death penalty as long as it has been proven that you commited a major and serious crime.

Reminds me of what Rosa said in ACII " Sometimes people just need to die for things to get better."

Question for a few of you out there: how do you rationalize pro-choice/anti-death penalty or pro-life/pro-death penalty? Without an incredible amount of moral maneuvering, it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm kind of in the middle (very pro choice, mildly against the death penalty) but only because of financial costs, really. On a morality level, how do you split it down the middle?