I would like to hear Bill O'Reilly argue the worth in keeping these two in prison the rest of their lives. According to O'Reilly, they don't deserve death...death would be too easy for them. He says they (and all death-eligible convicts) should get life with no parole and be made to suffer the rest of their days, having to stew over what they did. Personally, I don't agree.
In the past I have been generally opposed to the death penalty, except for the most heinous and egregious of crimes where the perp's identity is unquestionable. I perfectly understand why the society would want to kill people like David Westerfield or the Long Island Railroad killer (who escaped this punishment because it was not in effect in NY at the time he committed his crime). So if a jury decides this should be the penalty, that's ok with me. In NY, the death penalty has been reinstated, but it is largely used as a bargaining chip to solicit confessions and facilitate prosecutions. So I guess you could say I'm not opposed to the death penalty at all, just interested in the selective and prudent use of this form of punishment. Like I said earlier, I have no problem with the application of the death penalty for the sniping terrorists Mohammed and Falvo.
O'Reilly's position that death is too good for some criminals is ridiculous (as are many positions Bill takes). I would estimate that very few death row inmates are not truly scared and tortured as their appeals run out and their day of reckoning approaches.