Before I reply, I don't try to convince people to support the death penalty. In your case, I know you don't spout out the kind of bleeding heart crap that others have ...but here are my replies.
It does not deter crime. That can't be proven. It's like Christians who reply to atheists, "you can't prove God doesn't exist."
The costs to the state are outrageous. This is something that has been argued both ways.
Human life has intrinsic value. I agree - which is why I believe it's morally just to terminate the life of someone who goes so far that they terminate the life of an innocent person. When someone deliberately kills another (i.e. first degree murder), that person deserves to have their life forfeited. That is the greatest value you can place on innocent life - by taking it from someone who chooses to "play God" (as you put it) with someone else.
The strong moral argument clearly falls on the pro-death penalty side - the act of deliberatley taking another life is so monstrous that atonement is impossible. So much so that even death is too small a punishment.
Defense lawyers are often incompetent. True, and so are D.A.s
Jurors who support it but have reservations are eliminated from jury duty. I acknowledge this point.
Often in court cases, jurors are not given a sentencing option life without parole. The problem with life sentencing for someone who is guilty - the # of convicted murderers each year who escape, and/or kill prison guards.
Boards who consider pardons are flawed. In what way?
There is a large chance of error and sadly, many on death row have been proven innocent. I disagree that the chance for error is large - however, I acknowledge that it occurs. That is why I have changed my mind in the last year on whether to execute when there are questions of guilt.
It's cruel and unusual punishment. Of course it's cruel. Capital punishment is cruel, vicious and sadistic. It's suppposed to be. But what it is NOT is unusual.
In many court cases, jurors will not convict due to the possibility of being wrong and then criminals are never punished. I have heard this argument before, but have never heard of any case specifics. If you know of any, I'd definitely be interested in reading.
The family, who is usually innocent of any crime, is further punished. Family of the victims or family of the murderer? I'm assuming you meant the latter. You can call me cold-blooded, but I don't see that as a factor. I think you'd agree that family of prison guards who are killed each year by murderers serving time is a far bigger issue.
Capital punishment doesn't bring the victim back to life. What will? I don't see how this is an argument.
It is playing God. I agree. It's playing God with someone who chose to play God with another person (or persons).
As I said, I now have reservations about the death penalty when there are questions of guilt. But I have zero issue with it, when there is no question on guilt. The reason I don't agree with life in prison (even if it's life) is because of the # of murderers who escape and injure/kill. Aside from that, given a murderer a chance to live means that they get to re-live and re-celebrate in their minds their "kill" for the rest of their lives. (and this has been verified by MANY doctors in the field)
