Federal death sentences are very rare. There have only been [link|http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:tHZ4pUDeERMJ:www.bop.gov/about/history/execchart.jsp+federal+executions&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1|37 Federal Executions] since 1927.

The sales job for the death penalty as a deterrent often points to the Bible (in covert ways if necessary), and the protection of innocents. Those who advocate it often are distrustful of the federal government, believe it or not.

Murder is quite often a crime of passion. Someone gets angry and does something in the spur of the moment. In that moment, they're only thinking about their anger. They're not thinking about 10 minutes in the future or next week. They're certainly not thinking about a death penalty versus life in prison or whatever. In that respect, there is no deterrent. For premeditated murder, there is probably only limited deterrent effect as the murderer is most likely concentrating on not getting caught. IOW, more and better investigators is probably a better deterrent than the needle.

Justice White discussed the obvious limitations in deterrence when punishments are rarely applied in his [link|http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0238_ZC3.html|concurring opinion in Furman v. Georgia] (which outlawed the death penalty in the US (for a time)).

I'm ambivalent about the death penalty myself. I think a strong case can be made that civilized societies have many good reasons to give it up. But I could be persuaded that in some cases (e.g. [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot|Pol Pot], [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin|Stalin], and those responsible for the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide|Rwandan Genocide]), the ultimate punishment may appropriate. How to apply it fairly, if it is applied, is the issue.

Cheers,
Scott.