The reason, not excuse, to execute someone is simple, they've executed someone else themselves.
So the State, having decided that murder is illegal, resorts to murder as "punishment". That is hypocrisy of the highest order.
The problem with the death penalty is that you can't undo a mistake. Innocent people have been executed before; DNA evidence is getting people released from Death Row (see, for example, Anthony Apanovitch).
In cases where guilt is 100% proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, there is still the moral issue of the State, which represents the people, being party to murder when the State (ie. the people and the laws they have agreed to live by) forbids it.
Instead of people being terminated quickly, painlessly and with no suffering, now they are fully aware of the end of their life as it happens. This is clearly a much better solution.
The bolding is mine. Under what system of ethics do you follow where killing a person and ensuring their suffering right up until they die is viewed as a better solution?
What happens when a person commits a particularly horrendous crime? Suppose it takes around 20 minutes for lethal injections to work; how long would you have them suffer? The whole 20 minutes? Longer?
I'm sorry you're too simple minded to understand that some people are not worth letting live, but thats the reality of it..
In whose opinion? That may be your reality; it certainly isn't mine.
When someone murders another innocent being, plans it out, does the execution and shows no remorse at all (all of these things are the requirement for the death penalty in most places) ... and it happens to be your loved ones ... then get back to me on your high and mighty horse, until then ... stop pretending you're so enlightened. You aren't, you're just naive and selfish and ignorant of reality.
How many people go on to live better and more fulfilled lives knowing that this person is dead? Retribution is a very natural, normal emotional response. That doesn't mean it's the healthiest response.