No, killing someone is always wrong.

There are too many parts of the criminal "justice" system that aren't just. Because someone admits to a murder and signs a confession is that it? The police can use all kinds of coercion to get someone to admit to something they didn't do. Eye witnesses, this is one of the most unreliable ways to have someone brought up on charges. The case of Ruben "Hurricane" Carter in the early 70's. An "eye witness" fingered him in a murder in New Jersey and he wasn't even in the area. Hurricane Carter could have been the next middleweight champion, but he was found guilty and spent many years in prison before he was exonerated and set free. this case was so blatantly bullshit that Bob Dylan wrote a song about it and I think a movie called Hurricane was made. I think this kind of stuff happens more then we think especially to minorities and poor folks that can't afford an attorney.

In 2010 my best friend was murdered in cold blood by a guy he and his partner thought they could trust. In early 2017 he was finally convicted of murder, and in December of 2017 a Florida jury sentenced him to death.

First of all, it will be decades before he has used up all of his appeals, and the rest of us (including his sister) have had to resign ourselves to that. Second, this will also cost the tax payers of Florida millions of dollars. Third, his death won't bring Kevin back, and I don't think it will bring the closure many think it will. Finally, "Killing" someone because they killed someone may not be the panacea it seems to be. Kevin will still be dead, regardless.

Still, when it's someone you love, it's very hard to say one way or the other. Me, my sister, his sister, we all struggle with this. No matter what happens, we still get to live with the consequences of someone else's actions. It's very hard to explain that.

Nope.
It's barbaric.
It's unfair -- meaning to the poor and non-white suspects.
It's more expensive.
Mistakes happen all too frequently.
Period.
I hope to see complete abolishment in my lifetime.

I was loosely pro death penalty for years but an episode of Penn and Teller, "Bullshit" changed my mind completely.

Quality is rough but I was surprised the whole episode was up.

I support the death penalty in extreme cases. Mass murderers, thrill killers and the like. I do not consider humans as special, I really don't. We put down savage dogs, we don't lock them up for the rest of their lives. The lives of these killers are not sacred to me, of course the guilt would need to be beyond doubt but I wouldn't be letting them off for mental health reasons. Of course they are insane, they just murdered a heap of people for fun.

Innocent people have been executed. The only reason the death penalty exists is for the illusion of the state administering civilized justice. Do people deserve to die by taking lives? Yes. But enter the slippery-slope: doctors performing abortions.

WE should not play god. The death penalty is the easy way out. Life without parole, let them live and suffer for the remainder of his or her life. What if that person is really innocent and a later technology like DNA exonerate them after they are convicted. Life in a maximum security prison is not easy. Taking a life is wrong and it will not reverse the act of violence that was committed.

I'm in Texas where we execute everyone and I am against the death penalty. For one if we kill one innocent person then there is a problem with the death penalty. Also it cost more to be on death row than it would to put them in general population.

If people have murdered already, time to clean out garbage. There's No Redemption for that.
That's my personal opinion.

I personally believe that it is hypocritical to think that you have the right to kill someone because that person believed they had the same right. And when it comes to money, if we actually imprisoned only the violent criminals that are harmfull to others, instead of people who have addictions or mental issues, we could afford imprisoning all the killers easily.

I personally think if they are bad caused some physiological damage through heinous acts and it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why waste tax dollars housing them years and years, same day as conviction executions . My mom has the idea to stake them like an animal in the victim's family yard and let them do as they wish with them. Too problematic in my opinion.

Yes, But with a judicial system that varies on the punishment of the same crime differently. Then I would vote no. There has to be a mandate for uniformity... NOT what we have now. Get caught with a joint 5 years, Get caught assaulting someone (No Hospital stay) 6 monthes. I find our judicial system along with the Penal system is grossly misaligned. Private enterprise prisons are nothing more than a greed project. Sorry but I do believe our society is headed down the wrong path.

I like rules like Strike 3 and you're out, so if you have been committed of murdering three people, then that's it, you get the death penalty. Other than that I agree with @NerdyOkieDude that giving someone the death penalty for say one murder leaves open the possibility (with non trivial probability) that they are in fact innocent. It's happened a few times where people have been exonerated for murders they didn't commit using modern forensics. By the way forensic evidence can also be used to convict the wrong man, when the quality of forensic evidence is poor and the justice system handles it poorly (e.g. [bbc.com]

No-too many wrongful convictions in US based on racism.