The death penalty should be offered as a form of punishment.

I enjoy a good debate on an important issue so thank you for offering me that opportunity. However, it seems to me that this debate is just going to keep going in circles. You say that if we execute murderers we are no better than they are, but I would once again argue that the opposite is true. I believe that the only morally right and responsible thing to do is to ensure that these criminals are never allowed the opportunity of committing these brutal acts again. If we simply lock them away for the rest of their life in a state that does not allow for capital punishment then what is to keep these individuals from murdering while in jail? As I said before, they have nothing to lose in so doing. In addition to that you can never rule out the possibility of their escaping, and in our current justice system it is far from uncommon to see these people back on the streets after a few years. I don't think I can stress this point enough. If we allow them to live we are in fact valuing their lives above the lives of the countless innocent. We can never fully vouch for their safety while these people are allowed something they so reprehensibly denied others. I don't think you fully understood what I was trying to convey in our last round. I was referring to capital punishment and not punishment in general. I assure you I was not trying to insult your intelligence by assuming such a thing. It just seemed to me that the structure of your opening argument seemed to indicate that you felt that execution equaled no more than an act of vengeance. So if I offended you I apologize sincerely. I disagree that punishment is about reform. Reform can be a happy outcome of punishment, but it is not the purpose of punishment. Punishment is a penalty imposed for wrongdoing. In the case of murder there can simply be no expectation of or allowance made for reform. Unlike minor crimes, murder is a crime that can never be undone or recovered from, and it is certainly one we are morally bound to never let the same individual perpetrate again. The criminal can simply never be trusted in society again, and can never be trusted around inmates. I'm afraid that in order to attempt to prove their point deathpenaltyinfo.org used very unrealistic and misleading averages. Some states are more prone to crime than others and that goes for both pro and anti-capital punishment states. However, since there are so many fewer states against capital punishment than there are for, the average can only be misleading at best. For a state-by-state look at crime statistics I recommend going to http://www.disastercenter.com... U. S. Crime Statistics Total and by State 1960 - 2006 I understand that the certainty level for trials can not always be 100%, but DNA testing is proven to be at least 99% accurate and the rigorous court proceedings usually eliminates any reasonable doubt from the case and more often than not proves undeniable guilt. If it is not proven adequately there is no possibility that 12 people will agree on one decision. That is why we have the court system set up the way we do. To provide as much certainty as is humanly possible and protect the innocent. I'm all for better technology, but to use your logic a case could never be officially closed and the process would never end. I understood the statistics you used. In fact, they usually go much higher than that, but we are debating the moral issue and not the monetary. However, to briefly cover that topic, court cases would not cost nearly as much if we would limit the appeals process to within reasonable bounds. You are more likely to die of old age than execution on death row.