Totally torn on the issue.
I think in some ways its a pitty that the criminal resorted to homicide to solve a problem or conflict, and were showing them at ultimately, were no better by resorting to the same to deal with them. In some ways its an eye for an eye, in others its showing were no superior.
On the other hand, why on earth should they get to live, when someone who was totally innocent doesnt get to?
Of course, you have to prove that dieing actually is a tougher punishment than life in prison. In many ways its not. Its better to burn out, then to fade away? Maybe. Quite frankly I think they enjoy the attention, that day they die all the eyes of the world are on them, everyones talking about their last meal etc. A dignified end in many ways. Vs slowing becoming insignificant and old news rotting away in a cell, where no one cares anymore, and a new killer takes your place in the headlines for a while. A lot of these sick serial killers do it for attention. Killing them gives them even more attention/cause for debate. They are failures who just want their 15 minutes, something theyd never get in their pathetic normal lives.
Then again, id support it if it did act as a deterant. But theres no proof it does. In fact the states that have it I think have the highest murder rates.
Bear in mind, in a time when the death penalty might have worked, we didnt have the potent drugs we have nowadays which many people are on. People in the past who may have thought hard about the punishment might not care anymore.
A tough one. Also, what if the family of the victim dont want the person executed? Do you go against their wishes to prove a point, or anything for them, for justice?
Also, if you have the death penalty, anyone who killed who didnt get it, their lawyers will have a field day trying to get their prison sentances reduced. Example, "well it cant be so obvious they did it otherwise they would be on death row, this case deserves to be reopened" etc.