Justice demands an appropriate response for a crime committed. At times the process of justice gets it very wrong. At times those who determine sentencing are way out of kilter with zeitgeist. But justice needs to be more than the need/whim/opinion of the layman, the angry victim and the baying hounds of the 'outraged' majority. Or there is no justice. Terminating life sates nothing but bloodlust and a misguided sense that a wrong had been righted. It serves no purpose (other than the financial need to keep penal costs lower).

There is an academic distaste for the idea that revenge is a legitimate function of justice, which I think causes the working of justice systems to be out of kilter with the expectations of the people who rely upon them.

I have a feeling that your response may just be a little too subtle for this one, probably read your first sentance and now thinks you've endorsed him, he'll be looking you up on Linked in next, you have been warned.

I am not in favour of the death penalty, though it does seem perverse to stop lifers committing suicide. Having said that, I hear that Brady is still being kept alive very much against his will, and I can't help but hope the bd lives miserably as long as possible.

My point about making the executors (the entire legal system that allows it) as bad as the criminals is simple - The Human race considers the killing of one of it's members by another as the gravest crime possible, and in most of these cases (if not all, I'm not reading all of them, too depressing) the criminals are being killed because they killed someone in some fashion or other.

The Court, in term, killing them makes them just as bad, the crime against humanity is the same. Yes you could argue that the criminals victims may have faced a more gruesome death after being shot, stabbed, whatever - but that's not a deciding factor in most cases in terms of sentencing.

What is a major factor is whether it was premeditated or not, and to what degree. The worst being the pre-planned, organised killing - or execution, by it's very definition capital punishment is the very gravest of crimes.

It's simply not a deterrent.
It's not humane, it's simply made to be quiet so the population will stomach it - if you wanted to make it humane you could place the victim under a general and remove/destroy the heart / brain and the experience (if only physically not mentally) would be no worse than having you appendix out, but I imagine as they insist these things are public it would be a little too gruesome for them.
It's also not cheaper than life-long prison.

It's simply a vote winner with the stupid, who are no better than the ghoulish crowds that used to form around medieval beheadings, who are more interested in revenge than justice.

Ian Hislop is fantastic.

Yes and it is shocking.
True. but it leads me on to
My point exactly, as i believe we should concentrate on fixing the system. I am not saying that anyone who is proven to be guilty should be culled but that there should be some cases where it should be considered.
The death of one wrongly convicted person is a tragedy, but allowing some people to continue live is (in my opinion) a travesty.
I wholeheartedly agree, but fear of making a mistake shouldn't remove the option completely.

There you go again using words like "misguided" as though it was a fact. Justice means different things to different people - there is no one-solution. Capital punishment is simply another item on the available menu.

That you concede there is an "outraged majority" wanting capital punishment, yet take the opposite side suggests you're not in favour of a democratic vote about it. However, *I* will concede that democracy gave rise to Hitler which wasn't the 20th Century's finest hour.

What I'm saying is, it's not that simple to take one side or the other in this debate. Clearly, from some of the statements I've read in the OP's link, the fact that some of those offenders regret their previous actions so completely probably means they ought to be given a life sentence instead, however there are others for whom a simple painless death is too good, whether that be because of the horror of their crimes, the assessment that they'd offend again, or their general regretlessness (if that's even a word).

The problem with America's legal system reflects the inequalities of their social structure. It's clear to outsiders to see, especially to those who reside in countries for whom racism appears to be dying out (I hope I'm right about that). I can't help but think if we Europeans still had the death penalty that it's method would be beyond criticism, and for whom it was intended would be less overtly biased.

It does trouble me though that there are people going to the "gallows" where absolute proof has not been established, and I do concede that until such a time as this is ironed out, I would prefer to err on the side of caution.

Well, you did. Despite the risk, (and evidence of such things occurring, not just on death row), you will still lead people to the chamber, because a crim living is worse to you than an innocent dying.

It is not about pleasure of seeing someone die, it is about knowing that they can never be allowed back into the world at large, why keep something that is broken?