I do not understand the logic, or what tries to pass for logic, of those who oppose capital punishment on the idea that some innocent MIGHT be wrongly executed. If such happens you pay the survivors a wrongful death award, and if it was due to corruption in the system you execute those responsible. However with keeping murderers alive, and with recitivism rates being what they are, you are losing far more innocents... and there is no wrongful death awards because the murderer can rarely pay anything significant in that regard. So these many victims' families get nothing but sorrow all in the name of protecting a fictitious few. It makes no sense to me!
I would prefer that for murder there be no plea bargaining allowed if they can prove the case, and if they prove the case there should be one and only one penalty option... capital punishment. I see no reason to spend $40,000 a year to keep these slugs alive. Also what are you going to do to them if they kill again inside prison and are already serving a life sentence (without possibility of parole, but no such guarantees of no escape). What are you going to do? Raise them from the dead to serve another sentence? You have effectively no punishment you can give.
The opponents of capital punishment complain that it is not a deterrent. How could it be a deterrent? It is hardly ever used. Look at how many murders there are every year in the US. Compare this to how many executions. If nearly all, if not all, murders were guaranteed punished with capital punishment AND there was a 95+% chance of capture and conviction for such crimes it would most assuredly be a deterrent. And if nothing else it is the ONLY method which prevents recitivism. I have yet to hear of a single murderer who was executed killing again afterwards. Have you heard of such occurring? I didn't think so.
Politics