Is it revenge to lock up someone for 20 years because they commited an armed robbery? After all, you're denying them their freedom? I think not. The prison sentence is meant as a punishment with the side benefit of separating the criminal from society so they have a hard time committing other crimes on the populace. I see nothing wrong with punishment that fits the severity of the crime.

Capital punishment is the most severe. Since it is irreversible and humans aren't perfect, if we're going to have capital punishment then the burden of proof has to be extremely high. In too many cases, it hasn't been as the DNA cases have shown. The sometimes decades long appeals process is supposed to make the possibility of executing an innocent person very small but that may not be good enough. In cases where there is absolutely no doubt as to the convicted person's guilt - as in the case of Richard Farley that I mentioned - then the appeals process should be very short. Most cases aren't that conclusive. In those cases, if there isn't DNA evidence then I have a hard time with executing someone.

If people could be convinced that "life without parole" actually means "life without parole", that the person receiving that sentence will never get out of prison at any time for any reason, then perhaps the support for the death penalty would fade. However, so long as people believe - rightly or not - that murderers will someday be set free, I believe the people will continue to support capital punishment and will continue to elect people who won't repeal those laws.