1. It's pointless. It's not an effective deterrent, at least not for all people, otherwise you'd never need to use it.
A: we have never executed more than 1/1000 of the men on death row. I would say the failure-to-deter is more a matter of inconsistent and weak application.
2. It's prohibitively expensive. Most of the costs involve legal wrangling, after all, but that's still part of the cost.
A: Bullshit. It's giving them repeated, desperate options that is expensive. You're convicted? You get one appeal. Fail? You're done. NOT expensive.
3. It is irreversible. If you figure out you got the wrong person, you can't fix it.
A: So what? I mean, sure, it's regrettable. But personally I support a woman's right to choose to abort; ergo, to be logically consistent if I'm allowing a woman to kill what may be an innocent, healthy baby who's done nothing wrong except to be inconvenient, I can certainly accept killing someone who's PROBABLY guilty (or if innocent of THAT particular crime, is guilty of tons of others as well as generally making life for others around them miserable for years).
4. Even if you have the right person, it's not actually punishing HIM (or her,) since death is the ultimate fate of all living organisms.
A: I don't care it it's punitive. I'm utilitarian: there are no recidivists from the death penalty. None.
The person you would execute is receiving the exact same thing your own beloved child is doomed to get the day you conceive him or her.
A: So? Seriously, you're overrating death. As far as I'm concerned, it's throwing out a non-contributing part.
5. If you think you're getting the person being executed an earlier start on his/her eternal punishment, consider that eternity is the exact same duration,
A: Strawman, now you're *really* stretching.
6. In as much as there IS no eternal punishment, in the place many people believe their imaginary friend consigns "bad" people when they die, as it turns out.
A: Still just a strawman, there is 0% way you know this is true, in any case.
7. The people you punish are the friends and family of the people you kill, who often had nothing to do with the crime, even when you DO have the right person.
A: then they should have worked harder to provide that person with a social safety net, to maybe help them be a human being than someone society is better off without.
8. If you DO have the right person, consider the very real possibility that he or she is performing suicide-by-court-system and that you are playing right into a would-be suicides hands, by allowing, condoning, or supporting this stupid, counterproductive, barbaric practice.
A: I'm fine with that. Happy to help.
9. The executioner is morally and ethically no better than the person being executed;
A: that's ENTIRELY your assertion. I look at it as taking out the garbage; a stinky, but necessary job.
10. The idea that it's a punishment of the guilty having been thoroughly debunked, now let's briefly examine vengeance.
A: again, not punishment, not vengeance. If I find a sharp piece of glass on the floor, I don't throw it away to 'punish' it or 'pay it back' for cutting me. It is what it is. And the best thing I can do is dispose of it before it hurts someone.
11. It's a cowardly act to execute someone using someone else's hand.
A: I'll do it for everyone else. Again, the world needs garbagemen. My idea is to simply put them in a 100' silo with a stairway to the top. They don't HAVE to commit suicide by jumping, they could just starve. Either way, it's nearly cost-free, and actually "green" - crows need to eat too.
12. Restitution becomes impossible after the person dies,
A: every single case of "innocent" being executed, the individual may be innocent of THAT case, but is a horrible, worthless person who has committed numerous other crimes harming people around them for decades. They're worth getting rid of. (Shrug)
Not a single thing you said made me doubt my feelings on capital punishment one whit. Thanks, tho, for allowing me a nice list to comment on.