I propose we all ignore Larsen. He's not helping... anything, really.
Personally, I'm torn. I can see the arguments both for and against the death penalty. Personally, I think there are times when it is acceptable to kill another human being; in self defense, for one. At the same time, the death penalty is not the same as self defense. Self defense is done at the time of the crime, to prevent the crime from taking place... the death penalty is punishment for a previous crime, and cannot be applied until the original crime took place. While it might be to prevent further murders, the fact is that the death penalty is not applied to murderers or killers before they kill, or if they threaten to kill, but instead if they kill... so it's not necessarily to prevent the murderer's action. If it was to prevent further action, then you'd have to explain why life in prison, or even 20 years in prison, are less likely to prevent the crime than death.
Then there's the prevention of the actions of other murderers. Essentially, fear of the death chamber is supposed to inspire fear in other potential murderers. Though this tends to assume that the person isn't murdering out of passion (where the person is usually not in control of all of their faculties), and somewhat dubious when it comes to compulsion... I'd like to see if there's any actual evidence that life in prison is less of a deterrent than the death penalty. In fact, states which have the death penalty also tend to have the highest murder rates... usually because politicians want to do something about the murder rate as opposed to the death penalty causing murder. However, I just don't see any link between the death penalty lessening actual crimes committed. I'm willing to change my mind on this, though, with provided evidence.
Then there's the risks with sentencing people to death. Put 'em in jail for life, and you're more likely to find out that they're innocent and be able to free them after, say, 10 years of injustice. You can't take back killing someone (yet). And even though we have modern ways to convict criminals that are more effective, such as DNA testing, I've read that even they are unreliable. DNA is not as exact as people like to say, and partial matches are more accepted than they should be... and DNA testing can be rushed for high profile cases where the prosecution wants a quick conviction. There's just as much room for corruption and mistakes as there ever were, even with DNA. We're developing even more advanced methods of testing, but in the end, I just don't think we'll come up with a perfect system.
Now, that's all in support against the death penalty. However, I claimed to see both sides. So, what about supporting the death penalty? Well, the biggest argument I would use personally is, quite simply, jail space. There's just not enough... prisons are filling, even overfilling. And, if you ask me, I don't like how prisons are run in general. Even people that are innocent can come out much more hardened and more knowledgeable about how to commit crimes than they were going in. I've heard personal accounts of how prisons are run... the guards tend to try to divide the prisoners, spawn off one group to hate another, spawn off things like racism to keep the prisoners from banding together. I really don't think that inspiring hate is a good way to run things... period. I think that it makes things worse, never better. But whether or not jails are run well, has little to do with the death penalty IMO... that's more an argument for revamping how prisons are handled.
Now, while overfilling the jails is a problem, there's an easier solution, I think. While people that go for life fill up a jail for the rest of their lives, there are still a greater number of people being put in jail for minor offenses. And they've certainly been filling up since the drug war... I say we stop throwing people in prison for smoking a joint, or even doing some harder drugs. I don't see the point of acting like our own citizens are criminals because they use drugs. Junkies are about as much of "criminals" as peaceful protesters are, in my opinion. Stop jailing junkies, and we'll get lots more jail space for people that have done far more serious crimes.
In the end, when it comes out, I just don't support the death penalty. And I don't like the arguments for the death penalty that involve "punishment" in the eye-for-an-eye sense or actual hate. So you hate the guy. So he did really bad things. So there were nazis that were executed, and we all hate nazis. But that's all emotional, it's not rational. It'll never be rational... it's an emotional response to something that shouldn't be based purely on emotion, in my opinion.
That's my 2 cents, at least.
ETA: I just want to add that I haven't read all of this thread. For all I know, someone's already addressed a point that I've made. If that is so, please link me back to the post and I'll respond.
Offhand I make no claims either way.