The post you are reporting:
We are all potentially capable of murder (a lot of domestic murders, where one partner murders the other during a row, are first time crimes) and, therefore, we must each consider whether we and our loved ones are more at risk of being murdered or being executed for committing murder.
We must also consider what the likelihood is of innocent people being executed - it is inevitable that it will happen sooner or later.
Can the police, the courts, and the system generally be trusted to get things right on every occasion? They never have been able to previously.
Will juries be willing to convict in capital cases? Would you like to have to make the decision as to whether the person in the dock should live or die?
Will the government really be willing to carry out death sentences or will they find every excuse for not doing so, thus returning to the injustices of earlier centuries?
Will executions really prove to be the deterrent that the supporters of capital punishment expect them to be? This is a very important point as it is always put forward by the pro-capital punishment lobby as the principal benefit from reintroduction. It is unlikely the very worst murderers would be deterred because they are typically psychopaths or of such dubious sanity that they are incapable of rational behaviour (sometimes taking their own lives immediately after the crime, as in the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres) Certain criminals, e.g. drug traffickers, may be deterred because they have a clear option with defined risks but would the person who has a violent argument with their partner give a second thought to what will happen to them when in the heat of the moment they pick up the carving knife?
It is unlikely that a handful of executions a year will have any real deterrent effect particularly on the people whom society would most like to be deterred, e.g. serial killers, multiple rapists and terrorists. Yet these particular criminals are the least likely to be executed, the serial killers will be found insane and the terrorists will use any means to avoid conviction, e.g. intimidation of witnesses. So we go back to the situation where only "sane" murderers can be executed. Thus a modern day Ruth Ellis might also hang because she was sane, whilst Beverley Allitt, who murdered 4 small children, would be reprieved because she has Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy or so she and certain psychiatrists claim.
Do two wrongs really make a right?