No response. OK, so I’ll just say my piece then.
The death penalty is an expedient method of punishment that not only ensures the guilty person will not commit the crime again, but also prevents him/her from connecting with and influencing others. An added benefit is that it is a no maintenance dispensing of punishment. Maintaining jails is difficult, costly, and potentially risky (holding masses of dangerous people on leashes). Only a very leisurely society (such as ours) can even afford to allow capable people to become jailers, who do nothing but hold criminals at bay. An agrarian society would starve.
Therefore, jail should be looked at as an unhappy compromise between light punishment (monetary fines or forced service) for criminals who are no danger to society and maximum punishment (death) for those who deserving of that extreme. The only question is how do we decide what type of criminal is one that we will give the maximum punishment. We probably should not execute someone who can be rehabilitated into society, or someone who did not have the capacity to understand his/her own crime. But it seems like you believe no type of criminal is deserving- I say then you are wrong. Some criminals should be executed rather than preserved.
Agreed in any case that the US system for capital punishment is today 100% flawed and lives up to none of its purpose. I wonder can capital punishment be rehabilitated?