Starting out with the first paragraph, there is an easy and logical point that comes across. I believe in the use of capital and I think that this reason is a rather unused one. People don't want to get down to the very core of the issue which is capital punishment does work.
The second paragraph, on the other hand I feel lacks direction and is weak. Essentially, it makes poor comparisons and is off topic. I realize that this blog was thrown together while it was being written but I think this paragraph tries to "convert" the wrong group of people, and in result instead offends them. Example: the main premise of the paragraph is that humans should not interfere with God's jobs. I don't think there are any people out there against the death penalty because they see it God's job to end all human life when, in actuality God had given the Israelites specific instruction on how capital punishment was to implemented. In the middle of the paragraph when Nick gets into cloning and pruning plants, I ultimately had to skip over those areas and read the blog without them because I felt it did not relate to the death penalty, but instead were poor examples of God's role vs. human's role.
The final sentence in the 2nd paragraph I felt was bad logic and left a sour taste overall. Basically stated; since we don't understand everything about God, we cannot even begin to describe our role and his; therefore, anything is acceptable. In the last bit of the blog I enjoyed Nick's historical allusion and even more so the execution similar to witness protection. Overall I commend him for being on the edge but I feel the argument could be a lot stronger.