...need to die. If someone is a serial rapist/killer/burglar, they should be put out of their misery and the misery they are causing others. Its not worth the resources to keep them around.

People committing the most heinous crimes (usually murder in countries that practice the death penalty) have forfeited the right to life.

Government is not an individual and is given far more powers.

The death penalty shows the greatest respect for the ordinary man's, and especially the victim's, inviolable value.

It strikes fewer "innocent persons" than alternative penalties, as among prisoners and ex-prisoners there are many who relapse into new crimes which strike "innocent persons".

It provides peace of mind for many victims of crime and their families.

It recognizes humankind's natural sense of equal justice, in this case, a life for a life

It is the most effective way to protect society (its structures and its individuals) from a felon.

It is less cruel than prolonged sentences of imprisonment, especially under the conditions that would be popularly demanded for heinous criminals.

It is explicitly allowed in constitutions and other documents of basic law.

It provides extra leverage for the prosecutor to deal for important testimony and information.

It shows how seriously society looks at the most heinous crimes.

It enjoys democratic [link] support of the people.

From an economical point of view, it is cheaper to put on an execution than to house a prisoner for life.

Some executions are botched and the executed suffer extended pain. Even those who die instantly suffer mental anguish leading up to the execution.

The death penalty is killing. All killing is wrong, therefore the death penalty is wrong. According to Victor Hugo: [link] «Que dit la loi? Tu ne tueras pas! Comment le dit-elle? En tuant!» ("What says the law? You will not kill! How does it say it? By killing!")

It can encourage police misconduct as in the incident described in the documentary film The Thin Blue Line. [link] In the late 1970s, an innocent man named Randall Adams was framed by the Dallas County police department in Texas for a notorious murder of a police officer because they knew the more likely suspect, David Harris, was still a minor and thus ineligible for the death penalty so Adams had to serve as a scapegoat to execute.

It is not a deterrent because anyone that would be deterred by the death penalty would already have been deterred by life in prison, and people that are not deterred by that wouldn't be stopped by any punishment. It was also shown that states that have implimented the death penalty rescently have not had a reduction of violent crime.

With mandatory appeals and enhanced procedural and evidentiary requirements for capital cases in the USA, the cost of a death penalty case far exceeds (usually by a factor of ten) the cost of a trial and life imprisonment.

Exercising the death penalty is intolerant of the idea that the judicial system can make a mistake--which it can and which it does. We can free a wrongly convicted killer from jail, but cannot bring back to life a wrongly executed one.

the death penalty does not deter murder because most murders are either "crimes of passion" or are planned by people who don't think they'll get caught.

Since in many cases at least the defendants are financially indigent and therefore end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are often highly questionable, opponents argue that the prosecution has an unfair advantage

The race of the person to be executed can also affect the likelihood of the sentence they receive.

In a non-religious sense. Some hold that a judicial system should have the role of educating those found guilty of crimes. If one is executed he will never have been educated and made a better person.

The death penalty is a human rights violation [link]

Let begin by saying that if you follow Judeo-Christian thinking you should recognize that the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are very unambiguous. The arguments against the death penalty, however, extend far beyond simple religeous position. In many cases, despite our appeals process, death penalty victims are wrongly executed. When this occurs, it is becomes murder at the hands of society as a whole and that should never be allowed. Also, due to the length of appeals and incarceration prior to execution, most executions cost far more to society than life time imprisonment. Finally, most importantly though I feel compassion for the families of murder victims the harsh reality is that the death of another human being does nothing to sooth your suffering. I could say so much more, but I'll leave it at that and just say "I oppose".