What about the respect for the life of the person committing a crime? Just because they commit a crime, does not stop them from being a person.

On the contrary, it places justice above life.

If someone's acts negate their right to life, then the right to life isn't fundamental. The victim had their rights denied, this is true, but another death will not resurrect the dead.

This lack of reference to fundamentals is a greater undermining of the ordinary man's inviolable value than a 'balancing out' induced by killing the perpetrator.

If the death penalty were an effective deterent, it could perhaps be argued that there was a transfer of life from the unworthy to the worthy, but this simply isn't the case. See deathpenaltyinfo.org.

If you wish to establish that life is an inviolable right under all circumstances, those charged with enforcing that rule should set the best example-by never killing. If you wish, on the other hand, to establish that a given act can be a valid reason for killing someone, by all means hang 'em high. Your argument defeats itself.