Upon admitting guilt, the death penalty is reasonable.

Some people say that penalty is legalized murder because it is like "an eye for an eye". The difference between punishment and the crime is that one is legalized and the other is not! People are more brutalized by what they see on T. V. daily. People are not brutalized by punishments they are brutalized by our failure to serious punish, the brutal acts. In my opponents recent post he claims that, "If someone can find it in them to take the life of an innocent person then they hardly deserve life themselves. " Although my opponent claims to " note this is not including self defence charges" however what my opponent doesn't take in to consideration is that millions are waiting for the day that they hear it's their turn to walk their death. In my mind does my opponent not take in to consideration they family of the prisoner? "Why should these people deserve to take up the space that would be more useful to prisoners on parole? They provide absolutely nothing beneficial for America, and just take up space and eat food. The problem with that, is that they don't even deserve. Logically, the best decision would be death for these people. They have no future, and are never going to be let out. It serves us no good to keep them here. " - Philosophical I do not believe that they are just taking space. If we were to create task with in the prison its self this would be a great way for them to make money if they have a family to support. I believe that a person can be changed if shown how. The problem with that is that no one is willing to show them how to change for the good of their family as well as for America. If America's own pledge of allegiance was founded of justice. ". .. and justice for all. .. " then why cant they be given a chance to change the damage that they have created the pain that they have inside is nothing more then anger that builds with in them. Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year. This was as of June of 2008. My opponent also claims that state penitentiaries are overcrowded. Why not take the money that is being used on the death penalty to create new penitentiaries? They only reason that the death penalty is a just retribution because the criminals should suffer the same way as their victims did. Other then that the death penalty is a violation of the basic human rights. The death penalty is irrevocable and should be avoided to avoid judicial murder. Most studies shows that death penalty does not reduce crime. Who has the authority to judge whether a person should live or die? I want to thank Philosophical for this debate and wish him the best of luck. I look forward to his response. Sources : > . http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... > . http://karisable.com... > . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...