Grrrr, this makes me so angry!

[Christiefries]

What Esper said.

Also, I was speaking about people who are proven guilty. 115% proof that they did it. If there is an inkling of a possibility that they did not do it, then they should be kept alive if they're not let go, at least. Further the investigation for more proof on their current subjects and try to find others in hopes that with time the truth will come out.

There's also maybe an exception for those with a mental disability, but we don't need to go into that.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't support the death sentence, but that means I'm not happy about the prison system.

In 1994 a woman named Susan Smith let her car roll into a lake, carrying her two young children with it. She claimed an African American man stole her car, but was later convicted for the murder of her children. Why? She was having an affair with another man who didn't want to be in a relationship with her if she brought a pre-existing family with her.

So she's in prison. But not for life (I think the sentence is minimum 35 years, after which she's eligible for parole). While there, she's attempted suicide a few times, and had her medical bills paid by a lover of hers who wires lots of money into her prison account. Not only does she enjoy being relatively wealthy compared to other inmates, there are several guards who have been punished for having sex with her. Currently she has a (female) lover with her in prison.

If people like her are serving such time for atrocious crimes like letting their own children drown, then falsely and in a racist fashion pinning the crime (for a time) on someone who doesn't exist, why are prison inmates allowed such privilege while serving time? Things like money and sex aren't rights. If people are serving life for crimes they've committed, prison should not be a place filled with privilege.

Yup. Prisons shouldn't be a luxury hotel. If you're a prisoner, you should have no rights. You lost that privilege when you committed the crime.

[NecroTec]

Regarding the original post:
It is foolish to put the blame on the son of the killer's victim. There should have been better safeguards or he, as well as all other relatives of the killer's victims, should not have been allowed in the courtroom. Only a fool would give the distraught relatives direct access to the "alleged" killer.
.
.

I don't believe the death penalty is ever justified. No man has the right to take the life of another man for any reason.

Those are two very different concepts.
In the first the criminal has (supposedly) been caught, tried and sentenced to death. Life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is a valid alternative. And if the wrong person has been convicted (which does happen and the reason for the parenthetical "supposedly" above) then they can possibly be released while a dead person cannot be brought back to life.
However, your second claim is flawed. Hypothetical to demonstrate: A man has several other people caged with explosives rigged and this is clearly visible. The man has just shot two police officers dead in your sight then threatened but dismissed you since you are unarmed and not in a police officer's uniform. He is ranting to the TV cameras and it is quite obvious from his actions and words he will detonate the explosives when his speech is done. Shooting to wound leaves him capable of blowing up the captives. Do you - the only one in a position to do it but not personally in danger - pick up an officer's gun and shoot him dead before he blows up his captives?
.
.

Wait until he's close enough and smash the door of the closet into his face with brute force. Use the distraction to make a dash for the bed drawer and grab the gun. Briefly make sure that I loaded it and proceed to aim it at the intruder, bellow loudly at him to drop the knife. If he complies, smile sweetly and explain that it will take the police half an hour to get here. Torture him for half and hour and make him tell me exactly who he is. Execute him with the pistol right before the police arrives.

If he doesn't comply, shoot him on the spot.

Problem with the half hour of torture followed by the execution: Even if you were able to use torture techniques that would not show, the condition of the body could reveal you took your time before killing him. Plus, what happens to your plan if a police car is available closer but was temporarily out of touch? The cops get there while he's still alive. You could shoot him but you'd have only moments to make sure your wife understood she'd need to agreed with your version of events - likely but a mistake would be costly. It would be better to take at most five minutes questioning him then kill him - less satisfying but fewer chances of something going wrong.