The Death Penalty Should stay legal.

The pricniple you speak of is reasonable doubt or more appropriately proof beyond reasonable doubt which means that the state in criminal matters bears the onus of proving the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt as to whether someone for example murdered person A then he cannot be found guilty of the crime in question. I'm not quite sure how this helps your argument, if anything it would seem as though you are arguing on my behalf.I shall proceed with the point you raised ("rebuttal"). The fact that this principle that the state must prove that the accused committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt further serves to protect the accused against being wrongfully convicted. This further strengthens the argument that if someone has been sentenced to death chances are he actually committed the crime in question. (Which invalids a possible argument that we run the risk of executing innocent people)Furthermore it is possible to reverse a death sentence, this is the reason why the courts acknowledged ones right to appeal against a sentence laid against him/herThe Poor are the ones more affectedThis also rings true for life sentences, Pro fails to understand the point Con is attempting to convey. The judicial system by virtue of its function is inherently unfair to the poor, they have less access or rather no access to good lawyers who tend to cost a lot of money. But that's a fact of life, that doesn't mean we should stop punishing people for the wrongs they do simply because it appears to be unfair to some. How long will the victim card be played, many things on this planet are unfair; healthcare and education included. One of the few fair things is the principle that if you commit a crime you must be punished for it, proportionatley to the magnitude of the crime committed.Pro further argues that murderers may not have motivation to kill, but circumstances may easily arise where they have to to prove their loyalty to prison gangs, which more often than not literally rule the social aspect of prison life. Pro argues that no man is an island, as such in certain instances joining such a gang for the convicted murderer may be the difference between life and death. Pro further argues that death by lethal injection is far from inhumane it is actually a quick and painless procedure.Con argues that the Death Penalty could even be considered (on a limb) as a direct violation of the eighth amendment"Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death; but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution. It implies there something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of life".Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130, 135 http://scholar.google.com..."...this court holding that the Eighth Amendment did not apply to state legislation. It was not meant in the language we have quoted to give a comprehensive definition of cruel and unusual 371*371 punishment, but only to explain the application of the provision to the punishment of death. In other words, to describe what might make the punishment of death, cruel and unusual, though of itself it is not so"In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447http://scholar.google.com...a world of punishing someone charged with murder the same punishment is a world of corruption, Death sentence and corruption are 2 very dissimilar concept, one regards punishment for a wrong committed the other is on its own a wrongful act, we cannot make such comparisons as there is no basis for comparing these two very contrasting wordsIt is common knowledge that killing is never the answer. Armies kill to defend nations, people kill to defend their lives against imminent threats (self-defence).This is common knowlegde