I'm for it. I think it should be carried out no more than 2 years after the sentence, and the inmates only has 2 years to successfully appeal. No 20 year wait on Death Row.

However I do feel that the crime has to be proven beyond all doubt, with DNA and forensics to warrant the death penalty. I think there should be two categories of guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, and beyond all doubt.

If someone is found beyond a resonable doubt, then they get life. If they get beyond all doubt (again, DNA, video, forensics), they get capital punishment.

I'm mostly liberal except on this issue.

There are some hardcore anti-capital punishment folks, and some of the arguments that the death penalty is bad:
1) Its about revenge
2) It costs more money to execute someone then to keep them in jail for life.
3) Life in prison is worse than death, because criminals have to life with their guilt.
4) It is not effective in preventing crime.

Here is my response:
1) Yes, it is, so? Retribution is not wrong in itself. The essential part of the legal system is to carry out retribution in a civilized manner IF a person is found guilty.
2) It only costs more money because criminals on death row gets up to 10 to 20 years of appealing their sentence, costing huge amounts of money in legal fees.
3) If Life is worse, then why would criminals fight to avoid capital punishment?
4) Its only not effective because Capital Punishment is so hapazardly and rarely enforced. Even when it is given out, it takes many years to carry it out.
Of course nothing can deter certain crimes of passion. But if capital punishment is given out and carried out effciently, consistently and fairly, it will deter some crime.