Death Penalty - I don't welcome the debate

It looks though the death penalty debate is having another run.  I usually welcome debate, but you get to the point with some issues that debate is exhausted, the death penalty being one of them.
 
Locally we have a housing shortage and no plan to address it.  Nationally we have a mountain of debt, that we add to every day.  Borrowing money to pay the interest on money we already owe.
 
Internationally we have a financial crisis threatening the western world.  Most tragically, in Africa 10 million are in desperate need of emergency relief, with a child dying every 6 minutes.  

I am struggling to find a reason for having the death penalty.  Normally the 'pro' lobby talk about murder and that the death penalty would be a deterrence.  

This time and time again has been shown to be complete nonsense.  With no death penalty in developed Europe, the USA is one of the few developed countries to have the death penalty.  Fairly uniquely it is allowed in some parts of the country and not others.  It makes it the obvious choice to look at and make comparisons.

In 1990 the average number of murders per 100,000 was 9.5 in states with the death penalty, against 9.2 in states without.  The murder rate has since fallen across the US to 5.26 in states with the death penalty and 3.9 in states without the death penalty.  So murder has fallen regardless of punishment available, but the greatest fall has been in states where there isn't a death penalty.  The only consistent stat is you are more likely to get murdered where a state has the death penalty than where it hasn't.  

I don't know the reason for this.  Many argue that where a state shows so little regard for life, its residents take the same view.  Suggesting that the death penalty actually increases murder rates.

The whole idea of killing killers is odd logic.  If a state thinks it is OK to kill killers, then what about violent offenders , beat them up?  Should the government employ someone to drive round drunk crashing into all convicted drink drivers to show them what it's like?  Steal things from convicted shop lifters? burgle burglars?  What do you do to drug users?  the more offences you think about the more you realise the whole 'eye for an eye' approach to crime is mad at best, sick at worst.  

It seems very simple, if killing is wrong - you should not do it.  Whether your an angry individual or a government, you have no right to take life.  How could a Government Minister go round saying "it is wrong to kill people and if you do we'll.....er......kill you..............erm... ....which is different.........because you started it".  Completely childish.

Unless (or until) there is some amazing new evidence I would urge the Government to ignore the nutters who want parliament to waste time on this debate and focus all there energy on fixing the economy, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and other priorities.