Death Penalty

a study by Northwestern University revealed that in the state of Illinois alone, juries wrongfully convicted someone 12.5% of the time. This is for all cases but that still shows the chance of error in our judicial system.~~ I believe you when you state this. Now i would like to say. have you ever met a person who was perfect? Who never did anything wrong or who never made a bad decision? I have never met such person. now You sated 12.5 is worngly convicted but like a said before there is a little thing called parol. that does not say how many people has died. like i stated before people do get wrongly convicted but parol. how many of those people actually die? ~~. Killing one person doesn't bring another person back. It is our moral obligation to still acknowledge the right to life of these convicts. In the words of J.R.R.~~ convict lose all rights when they are convicted. Killing one person doesn't bring another person back but it brings justice. ~~ Tolkien, Oxford scholar and widely acknowledged as an upstanding moral individual, Tolkien, Oxford scholar and widely acknowledged as an upstanding moral individual, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them.~ No we can not give people who die life. but as Tolkien says "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. yes many do deserve death hence the death penalty. and some deserve life. yes all they people that was killed in a shooting by mafia or this random guy. The death peanlty is a way to bring this sad family justice after losing a loved one. know that they guy that killed their loved one can no longer doing anthing to them or anybody else in the world. Life in prison can not do this. there is always they chance they will get out. ~~Furthermore, New Mexico and Colorado are currently reconsidering their stances on the death penalty because, according to Governor Bill Richardson, the death penalty actually costs taxpayers more money than life in prison. So I ask you this, why should we spend more money just to kill someone?~~ As to what you said about taxes and paying to kill somebody. We wouldn't be paying more for this cause we are already paying for it. I would like to countinue paying for this with my taxes if it helps bring justice. ~~Here's a little timeline for you: 2007: Chief Justice Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is charged on 7 counts of misconduct because she improperly closed a court to the appeal of Michael Richard shortly before he was to be executed. It is believed that if she had not done this, he would have received a lesser sentence. February 11, 2009: Wayne Tompkins is executed when his guilt still remained in question. The prosecution never even proved that the alleged victim had died because several witnesses testified to seeing him alive after his supposed death. February 19, 2009: Edward Bell is executed for the murder of a police officer. He was denied an appeal because his lawyers failed to present sufficient evidence in the first trial.~~ I thank you for the timeline. but a these are not proven to have killed a innocent person. like i said befor there is no perfect person. I do think there might have been a person was has died that was innocent. ~~"It does everything to refrute your point. it does matter how different they are so it is not biased. if it wasn't for them then it would only be one person who decides. now that seems desturbing. These people help bring justice to this crazy world we live in" Greg, you obviously do not understand this point. It doesn't matter how moral or different or unbiased they are. The jurors could be Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Buddha, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, Jeremy Bentham, Romeo Dallaire, Billy Graham, any other three world-renowned moral figures. It doesn't matter. It still means that a group of twelve people can say who lives and who dies. They aren't perfect. They're still human and still make mistakes. Twelve people, or twelve thousand people for that matter, should not have the moral authority to decide if someone's life is less valuable than any of theirs. In the words of Jesus, "All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!" "Please know what you are talking about before you post." I would appreciate it if you could actually stick to the debate at hand and not resort to trying to win the case by personally insulting me. Especially since its hypocritical in the fact that you post arguments about a moral issue by saying that a group composed of different kinds of people has the power to decide if its moral or not.~~ I went ahead and posted that whole little bit so people would know what i was talking about because im going to talk about it all in one. I will say again i already refruted this point so i guess Brendan you do not understand. Ok let me make this little statement and this is talking about all over ther world that are in similar things. ok me and my brother saw they guy who killed a innocent old lady and a kid. and he saw us. well befor he could kill us he was caught by the police. and when he went in fron of the jury me and my brother testified against him. this made him go to jail. if we would not have then he would have be a free man. ok ( now you are thinking whats wrong with that. well lets say he gets out because there is no death penalty. like what brendan want.) Ok so he gets out and want revenge because we put him away now me and my brother are always looking over out shoulders because we heard he was set free. and a day or 2 later me and my brother our found dead in a alley. See the death penalty would keep more innocent people alive. If you do not get this then i am sorry. ~~I would appreciate it if you could actually stick to the debate at hand and not resort to trying to win the case by personally insulting me. Especially since its hypocritical in the fact that you post arguments about a moral issue by saying that a group composed of different kinds of people has the power to decide if its moral or not.~~ i would appreciate if you knew what you were talking about. i did stick to the debate you were not able to understand so you made this dumb lash out at me for something to use. but sorry it did not work. ~~This is purely a moral issue. It is impossible to discuss life and death without morality. I have clearly shown how the death penalty and everything it entails is immoral, while my opponent has argued that we need the death penalty to avenge those that die. He never even bothered to disagree that it was immoral, even thought i stated that in my very first argument!~~ i understand it is a moral issue that has been what me whole case is about. thats why i accepted this debate. my whole case goes againts yours so i do not see what you are talking about. I have refuted all his arugements. and he has made does lash outs at me. This is why you should vote for me. as i stated befor IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME. DON'T DO THE CRIME! ( and so there is not confusion. time means what ever your punishment may be)