Death Penalty

I can understand a victim's family's frustration at the thought of a killer getting away with what he has done. This seems to be what so many think happens when a killer avoids the death penalty. I will argue that not only is the death penalty not effective in preventing crime or bringing a victim back but is nothing but a costly state funded revenge killing. (1)Detterance Some will argue that the death penalty helps keep murder rates down by scaring would be criminals, at the thought of being put to death, into not commiting hard crimes. The theory goes that if one is about to murder someone he/she might be persuaded not do so out of fear that he will be put to death. This is definitely not the case. From 2003-2008 there were thirty countries in the world who had murder rates of 1.5 or less murders in every 100,000 people. Of these thirty, twenty had completely abolished the death penalty while ten still have the death penalty partially or fully in place.[1] Surely if the death penalty really had a deterring effect, there would be more countries in the top thirty with the death penalty than without. Iceland, a country that has abolished the death penalty, has the overall lowest murder rate in the world.[1] (2)Costs In California, taxpayers pay an estimated $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement. Just in California, if the death penalty were changed to life without parole, California taxpayers could save 125.5 million dollars annually.[2][3] This is because, when the death penalty is being seeked, after being convicted of the crime, the suspect must go through a very long process of appeals and sentencing to make sure he/she is not convicted of a crime he/she did not commit. This coupled with the arbitrariness of a punishment which neither rehabilitates criminals nor prevents crime makes the death penalty not worth it . (3)Arbitrariness Again, the death penalty does not really punish someone in that they are out and dead in 1, 2, 3. That is it, no more punishment after that. They basically get away with it like Hitler. Second, this does nothing to benefit society in the longrun. You could say that it takes out dangerous criminals. But can't we do that anyways by putting them in prison for life for a fraction of the cost? And doesn't it seem like a far worse punishment to sit and rot in a prison until you die in ripe old age then to go out in a second and be free from all responsibility? (4)Wrong guy There is also the possibility that one could be killed while being innocent. If we find out that a man was wrongly convicted of murder even ten years after the case, at least that man can one day walk out of prison. If that man was put to death on the other hand, all you can do is apologize to the suspect's family and apologize for killing an innocent and slandering his name. There are no backsies when it comes to the death penalty. My main reasoning stands that: A-The death penalty, contrary to what many say, has not been shown to deter criminals from commiting crimes. B-The cost of the death penalty is much higher than to put a person in prison for life. This is a complete waste of hundreds of millions of dollars of tax payer money. This money could be better used for rehabilitation or to help stop crimes before they happen. C-It is a much more effective punishment to make someone rot in a tiny cell for fifty years then to shut off their lights in a few seconds. D-There is no fixing a mistake like killing the wrong guy. I await my opponents responses, arguments.