We should redo the death penalty.

PRO: Trials will be cheaper Two-week Trial/No AppealsNd2400 talks about how we'll only convict people who we know for sure are guilty. But how do you define “know for sure”? In the case of mass shootings, it’s going to be pretty obvious who did it. But what about people who torture children? It isn’t as easy as “I saw you torture her so death penalty for you!” Children are raped and suffer from incest daily but to prove that an adult hurt them takes a lot more digging and investigation. You have to get testimonies and you have to either get the person to admit, find DNA evidence of some sort, or get a credible witness. Those things are hard to do. And for mass murder, that isn’t as easy as you’d think either. Serial killers like the Zodiac Killer got away with their crimes, they were never caught. To find the culprit AND THEN prove that they’re the culprit is hard. It takes WAY longer than simply two weeks. What if two weeks passed and there was no substantial evidence? You’re going to let the person walk? Or are you going to just kill them and hope they were guilty? To prove for the cases of mass murder and child torture, you need a longer trial. Sometimes, you DO need months or years because eventually you might catch the criminal. However, this costs money. This is expensive, as I said earlier it’ll cost the government millions of dollars. I’m not okay with the government using millions of dollars just to justify murder.My opponent also mentioned how my argument about black people was irrelevant but actually, it is. Black people are more likely to be accused and jailed for crimes they did not commit. They are also more likely to be put on death row. In the cases of mass murder, the jury would be very likely to convict a black person for the crime, even if they didn’t do it. And since you wouldn’t allow appeals, the person would die—despite their innocent—without a chance to fight back. I don’t see how that is acceptable. “This may be true in the old system of the Death Penalty. But it will not be true if they re-do the Death Penalty in my proposed system. So, this part of your argument is Irreverent in this debate.” This was in regards to my argument about race. I don’t understand this argument. Are you somehow saying that with your system, racism will be over? Because with your system, there is going to be a higher chance of wrongfully convicted people who don’t get a chance to appeal. You r system leads to a higher likelihood of innocent people dying.It is indeed very stupid that the court is using all this money to kill people. We need to get rid of the death penalty. PRO: Allowing criminals to stay in prison is wrong Not humane to let them stay in jail I don’t know why people assume that going to jail means someone is going to go crazy. It doesn’t. Also, these people probably already are crazy—which is why some of them need rehabilitation. Obviously for some criminals, trying to rehabilitate them is pointless but for others, maybe there is hope for them. I would not rather these people be shot in the head—I’d rather they don’t die at all. But that the end of the say WHO ARE YOU TO TELL SOMEONE WHETHER THEIR LIFE IS WORTH LIVIN OR NOT? You’re no one. And neither am I. Again, if these people wanted die, they could kill themselves—that isn’t up to you. “if some of these individuals "feel pain". They did kill multiple people and yet had no remorse or guilt. But we should for them.” This is such disgusting, detestable, despicable, abominable, repulsive thinking. What kind of world do we live in where we have convinced ourselves that torturing others is acceptable if they hurt someone else? And also, governments always claim that the lethal injection is perfectly safe—but it isn’t. They say it’s humane—it isn’t. The lethal injection becomes inhumane when you use it kill someone. Why is that? Because it’s murder. We could be using this money for poor people As I said before, letting criminals stay in jail is cheaper than trying to implement the death penalty. Your system would still need long trials in the cases of mass murders and the torturing of children. We are paying for them to stay alive because the state should not sanction murder. Yes, we feed them but don’t mistake keeping someone alive with worshipping them. No one is saying that we’re going to love these people and treat them like kings—because we’re not. And even if we used your system and saved money (which we won’t), don’t try and lie to me that the government would use it to for welfare. They won’t. We all know that. So changing the death penalty is not going to somehow benefit the poor. Criminals give up their rights “They give up there right when they started killing people in the Masses.” No they don’t actually. If they gave up their rights then that means we can do whatever we want to criminals, right? We can send a bunch of attack dogs on em, or have them get raped right? Or maybe we can dump them into a pool of acid alive. And no one will arrest me because they’re not human and on one cares, right? Because they have no rights according to you. I don’t care what evil things you have done as a person, you still have rights. That doesn’t necessarily mean I have to like you, I just need to acknowledge that as a human being I have no right to take away yours. Maybe that bothers people, that criminals are human beings, but that’s too bad. They are. Criminals give up their ability to live freely about society but that doesn’t mean they suddenly aren’t human. “You think it right for them to stay in Jail for the rest of their lives when it cost the taxpayer.” It’s funny that you say that because your system would also cost the taxpayer. In fact, millions of dollars because your system doesn’t somehow male trials easy. Your system doesn’t make racism go away, it doesn’t make catching criminals any easier, and it certainly doesn’t make the taxpayer pay less. “Actually, they get three meals a day when some people struggle to get there own food in the streets, and they get housing and get medicals for free. That doesn't sound right to me at all.” Listen, it’s sad that people are suffering but that doesn’t make murder acceptable. Yes, criminals get free food and medical care, but so do poor people. There are soup kitchens, welfare, shelters. Not all of these people are able to access these benefits but at least we have them. As a country, we need to improve our welfare programs, I understand that, but we also need to look progressively and realize that the death penalty is barbaric thinking. PRO: Bible supports this You are the one who brought religion into this argument, not me. I was simply telling you that you were taking the Bible out of context to suit your own twisted argument. The Bible says we must forgive, that doesn’t mean it’s easy, and I’m not saying that I can decide what you do with your life. I’m just telling what the Bible says. I would probably forgive the killer (though after a really long time), why you ask? Because holding on to that anger and pain my hurts me. A lot of these people don’t care how you feel, so hating them isn’t going to make them feel bad. They’re in jail, they don’t know who you are. “We'll these individuals who committed these murders didn't follow the Bible rule nor society rules. So, why should we keep them alive? And help them stay alive as long as possible. Sorry, this just doesn't add up to me…” Are trying to say that since these people didn’t follow the Bible, we should be able to kill them? This is wrong mainly because in the Bible it literally says “thou shalt no murder”! If they killed someone, they get punished—prison. We don’t get to decide that we’re somehow above the rules of the Bible because they broke the rules! Anyway, the Bible aside, the death penalty is wrong morally. It’s murder. Think about it, you’re killing someone for killing someone else! What is that logic? What is wrong with our society and being obsessed with revenge?