Yes. And Yes.

Only for serial killers or terrorists with clear, convincing evidence (and a confession helps). ACTUAL life in prison is more appropriate for other severe crimes, as you never truly know if someone's innocent or not.

sundin, you're pretty much the reason I jumped into this thread. After reading through your comments I just couldn't help myself. 
You, and others that think alike, view the death penalty as a punishment and it's within that description that your morality is best served and at its most distracting.

I view the death penalty differently. I don't see it so much as a punishment as I do a guarantee that the convicted will never, ever be given a chance to hurt another human being. I believe the process in which we convict and resign individuals to death row should be overhualed so there's aboslutely no possibility of an innocent person dying at the hands of the state, and in this age of DNA that shouldn't be a problem, but there's no question in my mind that there are people whose violent actions and disregard for the lives of others, preclude them from ever being part of society, in any way, whether that be behind bars or not. There are certain acts so heinous and vile, so beyond comprehension, that the perpetrators should be dealt with in the most assured way possible that protects the lives of innocents. 

Honestly, the core reason why you and I think differently is our opinion on life. On what life is, more specifically.. human life. 
I see us as nothing more than apex predators, animals sitting at the top of the food chain. Given that, it's within our rights as a social creature to rid ourselves of those whose actions hurt that structure at it's most basic level. 
You view life differently. You see it as something more grand and mysterious, something of an ethereal nature.. in other words, you believe life has value beyond what we seem and that life is in some way 'given' to us and as a result, we ourselves are not the ones ultimately resposible for it. 
That's where your morals lie. Mine reside in the everyday, in the existential, in the dirt so to speak. 

You disagreed with me above about the death penatly taking life out of necessity. But that's exactly what it is and why I stated that. Regardless of whether or not we remove someone physically, locking them in a cell, or remove someone by capital punishment (their word, not mine) only one of those two absolutely ensure the safety of others. I'll take that one. 

I brought up the Hitler scenario because I know it's a moral trap.. as does ACE, as do you, which is why he refused to answer it directly and why you decided to add your own twist and give it an option C.. lol. My scenario, not yours. You can't just change it to better fit your argument, that's cheating and a cowardly way out of an intellectual disagreement. No matter the context; taking a life to ensure the safety of others is what the question actually poses and that's where the morality of people who are staunchly anti-death penatly falters, because they would take that life. Again, that's what the death penatly is, it's not a punishment, it's an assurance. 
Peace. 

since the law is made by people and people aren't infallible however death is irreversible, no.

I'm for it for cases like multiple murders, child molestation, and other horrible crimes. Why should these people get to live and get 3 meals a day, when they apparently aren't worth the air they breathe, or tax payer dollars that keep them alive in jail, while they ruined or just plain ended, so many other lives.

So you think it is justified to take lives? Teaching people that killing is wrong by killing people?

Well some psycho's are to far gone, take mr Breivic for instance or Sadam Hussein. Mr Assad and leaders of IS have caused to much pain. And I would rather see serial killers and psychotic terrorist and mass pedophiles dead than coming free. Lifetime doesn't exist in the Netherlands 30 year tops, less with good behaviour. It shouldn't be a regular penalty by any means, but I believe that in a few cases the dead penalty is the best penalty.

Btw if a dog bites someone, even out of self defense or someone during tresspassing it gets put down. Is that any bit fair.

It's not okay to take lives and doing so multiple times will put your own live at risc.

People fear dead, and fear is as pain an excellent teacher dead so killing them is a good method or shouldn't we lock kidnappers, same principle. 

We don't view the death penalty as punishment,we view it in exact opposite terms actually. The death penalty is lack of punishment as well as a waste of human potential. Why do you insist on guessing what peoples views are based on unrelated evidence? Its unproductive.

This whole discussion is nothing but a circle where it seems you can only give fallacious statements and questions that have nothing to do with the death penalty so you can make yourself look right.

Let me ask you a question, if you had to make love to Brad Pitt or David Hasselhoff which one would it be? In either case, I guess your gay! I mean these kind of fallacious questions, which lead to an answer that can't possibly fit anyones agenda other than someone who doesn't get the topic, shouldn't even be considered yet here you are coming up with them yourself.

First of all, how does the Death Penalty do anything that Life Without Parole doesn't do towards the goal of insuring that the individual is unable to commit further crimes? There is of course crime commited in prison, but there are of course non-lethal steps that can be taken to combat this.

Second, the vast majority of cases don't actually contain DNA evidence, and often DNA evidence doesn't prove a crime so much as an interaction, so it isn't quite as infallible as you make it out to be.

As for your view on life, it seems rather contradictory. If we are simply apex predators and our lives arent really any more meaningful than those of a spider or a dog, than why do you believe that we should so fiercely protect human lives in the first place. Anyways, my argument throughout this thread almost exclusively relied on facts and objective statements, nothing about the mysteries of life, so I'd rather you not put words in my mouth. Life and what it means however is fairly abstract and interpreted differently by different individuals, so I don't really see how any singular perspective holds more weight than any other in this discussion.

And again, your Hitler scenario is inherently flawed. You presented a situation which was extremely divorced from the discussion in an attempt to somehow prove your point. You did so by restricting the situation into a binary in a ridiculous hypothetical situation. I merely suggested that the reality of the discussion does not demonstrate the options that you presented. Your Hitler example was extremely flawed and I think it could be argued that the intelectual dishonesty here is on your side by trying to mischaracterize the argument to make it seem more black and white than it actually is.

that's actually a really good point and an excellent counter, in contrast to ACE's last offering where he let his frustration and inability to reply with something similarly intuitive get the better of him and resorted to questioning my sexuality.. lol... I knew there was a good reason to stop replying to him. Did you happen to notice how he uses the word 'fallacious' in every response to me, he really likes that word, or how he confuses an agenda with an opinion.. well, whatever. 
Back to your highlighted remark from above. 
I would have really liked to answer that honestly, it's a fair question given my stated belief system toward life and an interesting perspective I haven't given much thought to. 
But here's where your refusal to play this game in a straightforward manner comes back to bite you, figuratively speaking, in the cerebral ass and why the simple rules of conversation need to be followed in order to arrive at some sort of mutual conclusion. 
You chose to avoid directly answering my question, you changed it to fit your argument and then answered it. Like I said, that's a cowardly way out of a discussion and the first indication that your oppostion has found a hole in your logic that you're not willing or capable of defending. And if you can't defend your view with complete conviction, if the person you're discussing something with poses a question that scares you into dodging around, than obviously there is something wrong with your viewpoint. 
So as much as I'd like to, because it honestly is a good counter question and would certainly move the conversation along, I'm not going to answer it. You don't deserve it. You didn't demonstrate the ability or desire to answer my prior question honestly so what makes you think you have the right to ask a following query of me? You don't. By your own actions, you lost that option... hmm, there's something hauntingly applicable in that last sentence, don't cha' think?
Later Sundin, think I'm gonna go find a more personally rewarding contest, win or lose, doesn't really matter to me.. as long as I can respect the person i'm playing against.