I'm mostly asking about your personal convictions, not necessarily how you feel about policy.
But feel free to also opine on any related aspect you'd like.
========
Generally I am against it. But have to say my convictions are tested when I see situations like these 4 young people who were recently murdered in Idaho.....
I used to be "all for it" - basically until a couple of realities became obvious:
1) you never see a well-off white guy executed who committed murder
2) the reality of over-the-top prosecutors who are willing to slant evidence
Those make me more apprehensive than my youthful certainty about everything. Not that this is a substantial number but even one is too many.
But look - SOME PEOPLE like Osama Bin Laden, Charles Manson, the Tsarnaevs, Timothy McVeigh - I mean, there's no more fitting punishment than death. Also - if you sentence a guy to life without parole and he commits murder in custody, how do you punish him?
Take a case like Scott Peterson just for example. Now it seems pretty clear to me that he PROBABLY murdered Laci and Connor. But that case was largely circumstantial evidence, too. What if we later learned someone set him up and we've fried him? And there are a lot of cases like that where it's a preponderance of the presented evidence.
It's bad enough we're wrong in enough cases of folks getting out after 20 years or more as modern-day Andy Dufresne's without the sewer escape.
If you can prove without a shadow of a doubt someone did it or particularly in cases like those above (Gacy and Bundy are two more), then I'm for it. But I'm not wanting to set up an express lane just because, either.