The United States should retain the use of the death penalty

YOUR ARGUMENTS As long as the death penalty is in use, there is always the risk of killing innocentsFor this argument, you provide the following link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...It is true that there have been cases where an innocent man was wrongfully convicted. But with our modern advancements in technology and science, our crime solving techniques have also gotten better. With more and more advancements, the risk of convicting an innocent man will become lower and lower.If you view the facts posted on that link, it states that between 1973 and 1999, there was an average of 3.1 exonerations a year for death penalty cases. From 2000 to 2007, there was an average of 5 exonerations per year.It is true that these numbers show that innocent people are sometimes convicted. But it also reveals something far more subtle, but very significant. It is well-known that evidence for guilt or innocence is strongest and best when the case is new. As time goes on, details become more convoluted. The exonerations are for "cold" cases. These are cases for crimes that have taken place a long time ago.And our modern advancements have gotten to the point where we are now able to clear innocent men on these old cases. The jump in average exonerations means that we are getting better and better at knowing when someone was innocent. Furthermore, if we are now at the point where we can show innocence on a case from years past, we clearly have the capabilities to show innocence on a new case. What was considered overwhelming evidence in past decades is far different from what we consider overwhelming evidence today.The risk of convicting an innocent person is constantly diminishing, and therefore the conviction of innocents in years past does not imply that the death penalty cannot be used nowadays and in the future.You state: "With life imprisonment there is zero chance of killing an innocent man."This is not true. This link (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...) shows various stories of people that were released after being sentenced to life without parole. In some of these cases, the person killed again after being released. In other cases, the person escaped.The main point is that with life in prison, the person can get out. And when that happens, there is a very serious risk of an innocent man (or woman, or child) being killed. Not by the state, but by the same murderer that apparently was too good of a guy to get the death penalty.The law books are sometimes filled with various legal loopholes. As strange as it may seem, life without parole does NOT necessarily mean that the individual will remain in prison for life. And thanks to the taxpayers dollars, all prisons have fully stocked libraries. These libraries contain all sorts of law books, so a murderer with a life sentence can study at his leisure to search for a loophole.The death penalty is barbaric form of punishment that needs to be abolished in order for the United states to progress as a societyMurdering innocent people is also barbaric. The death penalty may be viewed by some as "an eye for an eye" but that misses the point. In cases where there is overwhelming evidence, there is no sense in keeping a ruthless murderer alive.You say that we cannot progress without getting rid of the death penalty. I say that we cannot progress if we go soft on people that commit such abominable acts. There are people that have shown that they clearly cannot fit in to our society. Not only are they completely useless to society, they are outright harmful to society. You say that "it teaches revenge and is wrong." But revenge is actually needed. We know from game theory that tit for tat is one of the most highly effective strategies. Allowing someone to get away with murder is what is wrong.And when you think about it, it is not even "an eye for an eye." The murderer killed an innocent person. Killing the murderer is killing an extremely guilty person. A society where we go easy on murderers is not one that I would call progressive.Those executed cannot be be reformed, or rehabilitatedHere you state: "Two murderers, Van Houten and Krenwinkel, were sentenced to life imprisonment, but latter expressed remorse at their actions. If they had been sentenced to death they would never have had the chance to repent.Watson and Atkins, two other murderers, became Christian Fundamentalists after being given a life sentence."When we view your corresponding link (http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu...), we find out that these four individuals were vicious murderers that were part of the Manson family!!Two of them became Christian Fundamentalists after killing a bunch of people. This may sound cold-hearted, but honestly, I don't give a sh*t that these horrible human beings have found religion.I am no conservative. But when you start talking about reforming and rehabilitating the Manson family, I think you are taking bleeding heart liberalism to an extreme.I agree that if you kill a vicious murderer, that murderer cannot become reformed or rehabilitated. But the person is a vicious murderer! Why would you want to reform or rehabilitate them? The time wasted on such a task is clearly not worth it.With the other two from the Manson family, you say that if they were sentenced to death they wouldn't have had the chance to repent. If they were killed, I think very few people would care that such low life murdering individuals didn't have the chance to repent. I know I certainly wouldn't care. And I know that it is making me sound uncaring, but we have to put things in perspective here. These are people from the Manson family! Talking about reforming, rehabilitating, and the rest is simply taking liberalism to an extreme. Trying to rehabilitate such people is a VERY warped view.Death Penalty costs moreActually, the opposite is true. Life in prison costs more.http://deathpenalty.procon.org...The problem we have is that people that oppose the death penalty skew the numbers. The cost of trials for death penalty cases in the biased studies total the costs of all of the appeal cases as well (as they rightfully should). Unfortunately, people that are sentenced to life in prison also go to court numerous times to appeal the decision. But these costs are not counted (when they should be).From the link, we can see that the death penalty is actually less of a burden on the taxpayers. And when it comes to trial costs, "U.S. states that repeal death penalty laws do not see a significant savings in trial costs." Why? Because when the death penalty is a possibility, many defendants plea bargain and plea guilty for a life sentence. This ends the case quickly and saves a lot of money in trial costs.On the other hand, when life in prison is the most severe penalty, a person facing a charge that leads to life in prison has nothing to lose. There is no plea bargain, and the trial is dragged out leading to more trial costs.The death penalty is cheaper than paying for someone to be in prison for the rest of his or her life. MY ARGUMENTSYou claim that the death penalty devalues life. In prison, the inmates get cable tv, watch new releases in the movies, have an outdoor area for recreation, a gym, a full library, and the ability to learn a trade or get a college degree.I think that allowing a vicious murderer all of these perks devalues the life of the victims.Life in prison is the real waste of taxpayers' money. Such dispicable human beings should not be reformed or rehabilitated. Allowing them to live in prison is what is truly unjust.In certain cases, (e.g. your friends in the Manson family), the death penalty is more just than life in prison.The legal loopholes for life sentences shows that life in prison is what is truly risky. When the evidence is overwhelming, the death penalty is the best choice.