Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, China, Sudan.
No, this is not a list of countries with records of human rights abuses; nor is it a list of countries with ruthless dictators; nor is it a list of countries the United States has condemned at some point within the past few months.
Actually, it's an incomplete list. Add the U.S., and you are one step closer to completing a list of countries that kill their own people.
Every country mentioned currently allows its citizens to be sentenced to death. Only China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia execute more people than the U.S. does, and they are all on a list of only 20 nations who performed executions in 2009.
But, to be fair, executions are handed out with a somewhat honorable intention: to deter, and ultimately reduce, crime. It is reasonable, then, to question whether or not that works.

Regardless, the only thing being accomplished by the death penalty is death itself. A country that brutally murders its citizens seems as far from developed or democratic as it can possibly be. If the United States is the beacon of freedom and justice that it claims to be, it would abolish the death penalty tomorrow.
Not to mention the unintended consequences that come with any policy, and are not easy to undo when it comes to the death penalty. A recent New York Times editorial tells the tale of Carlos DeLuna, an alleged murderer executed by the state of Texas in 1989. According to studies involving the case, DeLuna was likely innocent. It would be foolish to believe that DeLuna's case is isolated.
At the very least, our system needs to start holding people accountable. The prosecutors in DeLuna's case reportedly withheld crucial exculpatory evidence that led to his conviction and ultimate death -- an unfortunate tactic that is widespread and goes unpunished. Prosecutors who act in such a way are, unquestionably, more guilty of murder than the innocent people they target.
Last August, Governor Rick Perry of Texas lambasted the Syrian government for threatening the safety of its own people. The next month, he received a roaring ovation after bragging about his authorization of 234 executions, the most in history.
Well, Mr. Perry, what's the difference?
Follow Jess Coleman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@jesskcoleman
Reverend William E. Flippin, Jr.: Witness for the Execution
Dan Simon: Carlos DeLuna, Cameron Willingham and Rethinking the Criminal Justice System
Mike Fegelman: Meet Press TV: Iran's Hateful Mouthpiece in Canada
Fix the legal wranglings and the proceedings that cause the death penalty to be misapplied, and more likely not applied at all. All this despite the rights of the victim being taken completely away without any possibility of being returned. Cry about the rights of the perpetrators when you can make the victim and the victim's family whole again. Till then, spare us with the drudgery of the repeated pleas of rights of the killers, rights that do not exist.
http://failuremag.com/index.php/feature/article/well_executed/
I also can't remember the numbers, but it's more expensive to execute somebody than it is to put them in prison for life.
So as well as all the moral issues, it's cheaper for the country to eliminate the death penalty. For a Republican like Rick Perry, the choice should be obvious.
Unlike a non-Death Penalty case where the defense must decide whether they will appeal the verdict and then how far they will appeal it. So now taxpayers are left with not only the costs associated with housing the inmate, there are all the additional court costs involved. The average stay on death row is between 10 to 12 years, that's a long time.