Well great. Here we go again . . . I am opposed for the following reasons.

The death penalty has actually shown to not be a deterrent to crime. The murder rate in the USA is many, many times greater than that of Britain and Australia (both non-death penalty countries with similar economies and lifestyles). Oklahoma and Texas have executed the most people, but their murder rates have increased and are higher than the national average.

The distribution of the death penalty is also historically unfair. How about that guy in Seattle who killed 50 prostitutes and got life in jail, whereas the mentally-ill David Hockner got the DP for stabbing his boss? And, is it really fair punishment unless you're 100% sure the person did it? Even then, after showing that killing is an acceptable solution to difficult problems, and violating human rights laws recognized around the world?

The enforcer/head-of-discipline guy at my high school was a prison guard at the most dangerous prison in New England until he got injured and took up a job with the school. He told me about his guard job (which he had originally planned on making his career) - he was the guy who carried the shield when they busted into a cell to take out an inmate. He pinned the prisoner down while the other guards secured his hands and feet. That place was brutal. He saw murderers go insane as they served out their life sentences. A few committed suicide; others were murdered. Many screamed that they could not take another day of the place. He couldn't imagine death being any worse than the hellish, monotonous torment they were being put through every day for the heinous crimes they had committed. Free food and shelter must be pretty minor condolences at that point.

What's sad is that the legal system could perform so much better. Unfortunately, it is rarely a lack of forensic technology that plants an innocent man on death row. Indeed, many convicts on death row are being acquitted after years behind bars as new DNA findings and things of the sort come out.

The court-appointed lawyers who frequently represent convicts are the worst-paid and least-experienced and skillful lawyers in the country. None of the 50 states meet the standards put forth by the ABA for their defense attorneys to ensure a good defense in a death penalty case!!! Not one! The convicts are not being given an adequate chance to defend themselves. No matter how heinous their crimes appear to have been, they are American citizens and deserve the full protection and service of the law as much as you or I.

I'll quote someone who has far more experience in this stuff than me or anyone else on these forums:

"I have yet to see a death case among the dozen coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial... People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty."

- Ruth Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice

A few more quotations to think about:

"I have never heard a murderer say they thought about the death penalty as consequence of their actions prior to committing their crimes."

- Kansas State Policeman

"The reality is that capital punishment in America is a lottery. It is a punishment that is shaped by the constraints of poverty, race, geography and local politics."

- Bryan Stevenson, Death Row Lawyer

And, finally:

"Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders."

- Camus

Would I like to beat the DC Sniper into a pulp with a crowbar and toss his limp body into a vat of sulfuric acid? Of course . . . but that isn't justice, which is what our legal system is all about - not revenge, which is mainstay of the DP.