Dyeing of old age isn't execution. Its natural causes.
Depends on whether the policy is executed properly.
Just hand them over to the Russians 
There is no one-line answer.
...Er...
Seems like a closed question to me...
Is it time for more Whole life sentences ?
Seem to remember a million pounds being banded about if death is involved.
If so, ridiculous.
I'm all for the death penalty if the crime is serious enough.Hell 3 strikes (any crime) and you're out (dead) is fine with me to.
Anything to help stem the population growth 
If not, large, offshore prisons is the way forward.
There are definitely ways to bring the cost of housing a prisoner down too.
Just depends if we have the bottle to do it.
Marv still pushing your Sharia law?
i think we tried that with Australia.
It's due to several factors in which death penalty cases/trials differ from normal cases/trials.
Firstly, the court cases are longer and more expensive, very few people plead guilty to a death penalty case and of course, they can't cop a plea deal that still ends up with the death penalty.
Pre and post trial sentencing costs in countless studies in the US have found that Death Penalty cases and incarceration average twice the cost of Life sentences with incarceration.
In fact no study has found it cheaper to execute rather than lock up for life - unless of course one completely throws out any notion of what we consider a fair and just legal system and instead revert to a Micky Mouse legal system of the types expected in third world dictatorships or several hundred years ago.
I am all for a re-evaluation of our sentencing and the inclusion of full life sentences - as long as there is some assessment and re-evaluation periodically during the sentence.
That is to say that instead of giving someone 25yrs they can be sentenced to a full life term and not be automatically due for release, but strict and in depth evaluations could be carried out at 25yrs to determine if under special circumstances that the person is actually no longer a threat.
For me, the sentences for serious violence, especially against innocent or harmless victims should be a lot higher - whether it be a case of increasing the maximum penalty, or about encouraging the use of the maximum instead of half or even less.
It's one thing having two blokes having a scrap, it's another when it's someone smacking an old pensioner around the head with a hammer.
If the person is dangerous and unstable enough to carry out such an abhorrent attack, then they need locking up until a time that they can be proven to be no longer a risk.
Sentencing based on protection of the public from dangerous people rather than retribution and punishment.
Taking that at face value, I have very limited experience in that field, that doesn't make sense to me. The sentence and how someone pleads shouldn't be allowed to be linked in my opinion...I have a binary view on this, either you are guilty or not. Don't waste our time by playing games, that should be an automatic guilty verdict 