Yes, that last comment is certainly true. Of course, that is because the US has such a lengthy and comprehensive appeals process - which isn't a problem in China. It is quite economical to kill people in China, which, of course, is part of the problem. China kills too many people. The US probably doesn't kill enough.
So I certainly don't agree with Gilly's "barbaric" comments - the idea that we are so 'evolved' that we have become unable to take a human life is ridiculous and is just wish fulfillment. The fact that we are becoming so unwilling to face the consequences of crime and justice is simply a sign of cultural weakness and an unwillingness to deal with difficult issues. I do believe that everyone has a right to an opinion on this, because Gilly's position is essentially a 'moral' one; i.e., i is 'immoral' to take a human life, under any circumstances. However, he can't presume to impose his morality on everyone else in the world, in fact, a 'moral' position taken by someone who is presumably not religious, is a bit of a minomer.
One reason I admire certain religious types, such as the actor Martin Sheen, is that when they can take a moralist, whose morals are informed by his religious beliefs. He is both anti-death penalty, and anti-abortion. The Pope would take the same position. Even though I strongly disagree on both positions, I admire the philisophical and moral consistency of someone willing to hold them both. My position is, I believe, equally consistent. If, on the other hand, someone takes positions that are not quite as conherent, then they will have a more difficult time making a case that their position is based on a superior set of moral beliefs.