I read the article too.
I am against the death penalty for several reasons. The most obvious is that there is always a chance of getting it wrong and killing an innocent person. But even if the person is 100% guilty I am against it. To me, there are 3 ways we can justify a punishment:
1: Protection for the citizens of the country that might otherwise be affected by reoffending. The death penalty cannot be justified on these grounds, as they could be sentenced to life with no chance of parole.
2: Rehabilitation. Obviously killing someone doesn't make them into a better person...
3: Deterrence. If it were shown that the death penalty was more of a deterrent than life without parole, there could be some justification for it, as it may save other lives by reducing the homicide rate. There is no evidence for this, and lots of evidence to show the opposite is true. I read recently that on the days following an execution, the murder rate goes up for that state.
So, all that it seems is left to justify it is revenge and bloodlust. Not a good enough reason to kill someone in my book.
Also, it isn't applied consistently. Ethnic minorities are far more likely to be sentenced to death than whites - even when you factor in the seriousness of the crime etc.
By the way, the death penalty is still on the statute books in Britain. But only for treason I think. And it will never happen.