We can divide the world in two categories - those who believe that it can be divided in two categories and those who do not. On the one hand, we have countries in European Union who have moved beyond the debate for Capital Punishment. On the other hand there are authoritarian states, which use Capital Punishment as a tool to subjugate. In this regard, I find the Indian approach well balanced. There are enough provisions and sufficient delay built in the system to identify the outliers. This system works hard to avoid hanging the criminal with a shadow of doubt. And very few cases ultimately result in the capital punishment. I have followed a few cases in UK, where I have noticed public anger when heinous crimes result in a life sentence, which does not mean sentenced for life. I recall one case where the state had to protect a murderer because his life was at risk from fellow prisoners. (Suggesting that convicted murderers do not find all murderers to be equal.) I think, there are times when a state does not have to state a position unambiguously. Capital Punishment is one such topic.
Apologies for posting unrelated comment but found a few posts in this thread that touched this topic.