I think before one makes a statement on the death penalty, one should understand what the goal is that is trying to be accomplished.

What is the purpose of the U.S.'s penal/justice system? is it deterrence? punishment? or rehabilitation?

If deterrence is the purpose, then the fact that the average death sentence takes 7 years to come to 'completion' is not a very effective deterrent. People who have the mentality required to commit these heinous crimes are not particularly concerned about the consequences of their actions.

If the purpose is punishment, then I think the death penalty is inappropriate, due to the fact that it is too humane.
Consider what some of these monsters have done, and ask youself if a nice, humane injection is appropriate to the crimes they have committed.
Last meal, protection from other inmates who might mete out a significantly more appropriate punishment, especially in the case of child killers, and rapist/killers, (Inmates are notorious for their treatment of these criminals, who are at the lowest rung of the penal social structure.) color TV and a nice warm bed, access to libraries where they can become prison cell lawyers, using that time to stretch out their appeals, etc.

Finally we have rehabilitation. I will be the first to admit that a death sentence pretty much guarantees the criminal will never again commit that crime, but I don't think that's the idea.

So, I don't think the death penalty makes sense in any of these particular reasons, therefore, there must be another purpose behind the justice system. Maybe someone can point it out to me?

On the other hand, I firmly believe that there are people who truly deserve to die for what they have done. I don't care what the victim's families say about forgiving, (and I find it hard to believe they represent more than a minority of the people who have lost people to cold blooded killers), society deserves to be protected from sociopaths. I personally could not live with myself if I worked to gain freedom for a killer who had been 'rehabilitated' only to have him/her murder my friend's children, or even more unthinkable, my own.

I believe there should first be no doubt about whether or not someone is guilty, and that they did the deed in cold blood. If there is a grey area about their guilt, or about why they did it (crimes of passion, etc) then life without parole is fine. The reasonable doubt rule should be stricter for death penalty cases.

Wesley Alan Dodd admitted to killing the children he kidnapped and ... killed is enough. He also said he would do it again. Death was appropriate for him. People like that need to be eliminated, and I see no reason to pay for the rest of their time on this planet with my tax dollars.

Be sure..

Once you are sure, act. (No, this isn't a call for vigilantism. I refer to the courts)