Before we get into this I'll define those two straight up:

Sadism:
The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty.

Justice:
The quality of being just; conformity to the principles of righteousness and rectitude in all things; strict performance of moral obligations; practical conformity to human or divine law; integrity in the dealings of men with each other; rectitude; equity; uprightness.


Now then.
The question becomes, is the Death Sentence based around sadism or justice?
Reasons for sadism:
People are killed slowly(there is no instant death), and sometimes painfully(Gas chamber).
Reasons for justice:
???

And so on and so forth...have fun.

From my point of view, the death penalty has always been totally illogical (as well as unethical):

If murder is illegal because killing people is wrong, then it's also wrong to execute them, because killing people is wrong.

Besides that, supporters of the death penalty are saying that the individual has no right to kill someone (it's murder - I agree), but the state has a right to kill an individual (I disagree). I would never put the power of life or death of an individual in the hands of the state - that's the ultimate in totalitarian control by the state over an individual.

I dislike the death penalty because it is absolute and final, and therefore merciless.

However, I don't think it is sadistic. I can see why its supporters consider it 'just,' if the offender is a murderer for example, but that is dependent on one's view of justice. I don't believe in the barbarous notion of 'an eye for an eye,' but if someone does, then for them it is about justice.

Or pleasure.
A lot of families enjoy seeing the person who killed a relative of theirs dead/dying.
In fact, look at 9/11 and look at how many people were screaming for Bin Laden's blood.

Now if we'd executed him live and on television imagine how many people who were crying for his blood would've enjoyed watching it?

In the end we're all animals inside..I'm just trying to see how below the surface the animal is

Agreed, John.

The moral question becomes... if a person is entirely sane, yet his actions are to the point that he may be considered "evil" by societal notions (such as bin Laden), is death a potential means of getting rid of them? Or are there better? Restitution in the form of sadistic pleasure doesn't make up for the 1000s of people Saddam Hussein killed. Is there anything better?

I don't think revenge and sadism are the same thing. At all.

They are in a way (not exactly, sadism is used more in terms of erotic pleasure). Revenge is usually utilized for an emotional pleasure. If Person A killed my mother, I want to see Person A die. It won't bring back my mother, but it will give me a (in lieu of a better word) moment of sadistic pleasure.

Sadism has 3 different definitions.
1 deals with erotic/sexual pleasure.
So I dumped it.
The other wasn't specific enough, if I remember correctly, so I dropped it.
And I chose the other.

Killing people is not wrong, if the cause is just. If you killed Hitler in 1940, sparing millions of people a horrible death, that would be just. If you remove a murderer from ever commiting his crime again, and use him as an example to deter others, and give the victim's family justice, then it is a just execution.

Such revenge may be satisfying, but I don't think it is pleasurable. It might remove some of the pain, but that is not the same as giving pleasure, and I think that sadism implies pleasure.

This does not follow. Punishment via due process is not the same as criminal use of force.

It is wrong to kidnap. It is not wrong to incarcerate a criminal after a trial. But the two acts are the same, viewed as pure acts.

Killing people is not always wrong. One can kill in self defense, for example. Context always matters.

If one is utterly certain of guilt, CP is entirely justified.

utter certainty of guilt, eh? Good luck with that one.

Sometimes you have it; sometimes you don't. Why avoid the DP when you do have it? (I.e., ironclad evidence, confession, DNA, etc).

The death penalty costs more to the state and the People than life imprisonment.

Well, just to name one reason.

The only reason I'm against the Death Penalty is ebcause I know how often the courts get it wrong. I'd be up for the execution of people by the state for a whole host of crimes if it was't for the fact that you would wrongly condem loads of people to death.

Neon

And how do you suggest we guarantee that there are no innocent people condemned to death any better than we all ready have?

Ask yourself why that is, some time.

How many innocent people have been put to death? The endless appeals process weeds that out. So far, there has been no documented case of an innocent person being put to death.

But in any event, I do understand and agree that the balance should be tilted heavily towards no innocents ever being executed. But there's no reason to scrap the DP entirely to avoid that. It's pretty straightforward, nowadays, to set clear restrictions on capital cases, such as: conclusive DNA, etc.

My problem with the DP is it's more a form of revenge than the real, logical use (to destroy certain members of our species that are effectively rabid dogs - there is NO hope of rehabilitation, no hope to change them into a constructive member of society). This would work towards the criminally insane along with people like Timothy McVeigh, who express no regret towards the atrocities they bring about.

The problem with my view, and even the current system, is there is no clear-cut drawn line to separate people by DP, life imprisonment, etc. It's totally up to the whims of a fallible human, or multiple fallible persons.

Also, at risk of going off-topic, what should be done to "make up" the lost time of people wrongfully imprisoned?