The Death Penalty should be abolished

The Death Penalty - Murder is defined as "Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law." As such the act of killing some one with the death penalty is not murder by definition because the government does not recognize it as such. Additionally, the death penalty has been practiced throughout history, and is even advocated in the Bible repeatedly in acts such as stoning children who act against their parents, or any other number of sinners. + I got this definition: The killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. If only killing while against the law is murder, then the Nazis, Janjaweed (in Sudan), the Native American killings are justified. - You said that it is not the government's place to murder people without war, so then is it nor morally reprehensible if there is a war? + war = a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation - As such you don't hear people say "I don't want to get the death penalty" because everyone knows that no one wants to die. crimes by and large are not committed on the scale that would merit the possibility of capital punishment because while people are not so afraid of going to jail, they are afraid of the potentiality of being put to death. + You can assume that people dont want to go to prison as well so your point is illogical. Also, the death penalty crimes are very haneous and people dont commit them very often for that fact. Most people are not serial murderers. That is why the crimes are not committed as often not because the death penalty is feared. - "It kills people instead of allowing them to pay for their crimes." Is killing them not forcing them to pay for their crimes? + Killing them does not make them suffer instead they just dont feel anything. Most people would rather die than spend their entire lives in prison. that is why prison suicide is so high for lifetime convicts. - "The appeal process is too great for a death penalty person. They can get acquitted any time wrongfully." This is true for many criminals. A prisoner in jail has nothing better to do than research case law, and look for reasons that they should be allowed another appeal and eventually get themselves acquitted. They can not do this if they are dead. + Death penalty appeals are ALWAYS granted. The appeals process is a lot longer for death penalty convicts and the people who get acquitted aparantly did not commit the crime!!! - Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual, every which is much more a service than they probably gave to their victims. If not rendered unconscious, the inmate will feel excruciating pain; if paralyzed by the pancuronium bromide, the inmate will be unable to show this pain. + Some executions have lasted between 20 minutes to over an hour and prisoners have been seen gasping for air, grimacing and convulsing during executions. Autopsies have shown severe, foot long chemical burns to the skin and needles have been found in soft tissue. (amnestyusa.com) Murdering murderers is unusual as well. - whether or not the prison system as a whole is bias, is a topic for another debate. + Debate the point. Are you going to allow this genocide of the minorities to continue? - This does happen, such cases are in the minority, and as you stated earlier, the person in question has many opportunities for appeal, as such you would not be "suddenly murdered for a crime you didn't commit," there is nothing sudden about the death penalty. + How can you admit that murdering innocent people is fine? You could be one of these innocent people who unsuddenly gets murdered. - This is by and large not true, very few convicted felons are able to re-adapt to society, few can get jobs worth having, and as such most return to lives of crime. + Should you just rob good citizens of their entire lives after they've changed and paid their debt to society? - While this is true, it is not the actual act of capital punishment, but rather the court fees for all of the additional litigation, which as i said before may be present in a non-capital court case. + However, it is present in ALL capital court cases!!! This is a waste of you and I's money for an evil, ineffective action. - the trials are held at the same pace as any trial, and as such the right to a speedy trial is no more infringed upon an alleged murderer than a person convicted of speeding. + Prove this. It is an opinion and I disagree. - Although yes we do need to advance, beyond an eye for an eye, this does not detract from the potential benefit of ridding the world of a mass murderer, or rapist or what have you. + A permanent societal change is far more important than a mass murderer. - Rather it is more government gets rid of Person X because they did this ti Citizen Y and it is believed that they have the potential to do said act again and it is more beneficial for the community to be rid of Person X. The way our laws are set up in no way reflect the scenarios you described. Death is just another level of separation between the public masses and the criminal; albeit a permanent one. + Prisons are more effective. and getting rid of is a euphemism for murdering a murderer: an eye for an eye. - "Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. And we could have more help in our military and economic ventures." Honestly I think our stance on the death penalty is a low priority to other countries. What I think they are more concerned about is the "murdering" of Iraqis by American troops in the scenario you said earlier would make killing acceptable. If that is so, why are they so angry about our invasions and war? + Maybe if we actually fixed our problems instead of saying but look at our bigger problems every country in the world would not hate us - Again partially true, jury members are reluctant to convict if it means the person will receive the death penalty, but then again we don't want them to feel comfortable sending some one to their death, the death penalty makes them treat the case that much more seriously. Also there are usually lesser charges brought against the defendant that the jurors could still find him/her guilty on, without the death penalty. + Most jurors will not be responsible for somebody's murder and you just said that we should let the mass murder go for a smaller, convictable crime. Life inprison for the guy who killed 20 babies or 5 months for burglary? Also, there are not always lesser crimes to be convicted for. - Yes, and isn't it horrible how much they must grieve... a strange parallel between them and the victim's family. Only it was not the victim who brought the prisoners family into a...?