I think it's completely unfair. Just imagine someone is a good person, who would never even consider hurting anyone, and is just desperate for money. Then someone else takes advantage of their vulnerability, and manipulates them into helping them rob someone. They promise they won't hurt anyone, but then break their promise. How could you say it's fair that the other person dies for that? If you don't believe in the death penalty at all, I suppose you could make the same argument for life without parole.
Killing killers via execution ensures they will never kill again. In that way, the DP is a deterrent.
Even those "desperate for money" know right from wrong.
They should know that hanging out with unsavory characters will get them into trouble.
I have no sympathy for those who commit the ultimate societal sin. They deserve nothing less than the ultimate societal punishment - permanent removal from that society.
NukeDude is talking about "specific deterrence," or "incapacitation." Calling it "deterrence" just muddies the water.
"Deterrence" in criminal justice usually refers to general deterrence of future crimes by people in general. Execution has never been proven effective for this purpose, despite numerous studies. Capital offenders generally don't consider consequences - they're too dumb or maladjusted, or they assume they'll never be caught.
In fact, execution as a deterrent actually lacks evidentiary support where you'd expect to find it. I.e., there are no known criminals who deliberately stopped short of capital offenses for fear of execution.
Now, admittedly, execution is indeed an effective as incapacitation. But it's equally effective against rapists, embezzlers, shoplifters and jaywalkers. So incapacitation by itself is an insufficient justification for the death penalty.
Additionally, the long appeals process necessary before execution eliminates and hope of actual deterrence, while serving the purpose of incapacitation without actually killing the person.
And before you say, "just eliminate the appeals," you should know that (A) that's not going to happen anytime soon and (B) we've executed people later proven to be innocent, which should be sufficient reason NOT to eliminate or shorten the appeals process.
Honestly, how many of you would waive your appeals process if you were wrongly sentenced to death? You know you're innocent, just like any number of other executed convicts. Are you honestly going to tell me you'd take the hit and accept wrongful execution because the process is so wasteful in general?
There are certain situations in which guilt beyond all doubt is proven, which is over and above the current legal standard.
In those cases, like the Petit family murderers, for example, where there is absolutely no justification whatsoever that those guys should NOT be executed.
I hope you're not saying K9 excrement like those guys shouldn't be put to death...are you?