The Death Penalty makes more sense than Solitary Confinement for Life.

Your solitary confinement would require individual bathrooms. Also, perhaps the government could "sell" the death of the criminal to the movie business to use in a scene in which they would have to fake an actor being killed, or they could sell the rights to perform the execution." -The government capitalizing on the death of an individual like that? Selling one's death to the movie business? I would like to point out that the family of these murderers are a part of this too. If your father had murdered someone and had been sentenced to death, would you want it to be broadcast on TV or in the movies? That is a real human life, guilty or not. -On that same note, isn't the death penalty really hurting those closest to these murderers in many cases? Loving parents, siblings and friends will have to endure the same pain that the family of the victim endured. Is that fair? Is it fair to want to put these innocent people through the same pain that you went through just because someone you know was murdered by someone they know? Justice is not eye for an eye; it is higher than revenge, and that's what the death penalty really is: vengeance. -Also, individual bathrooms would hardly add up to the millions of dollars lost on the death penalty, so solitary confinement would absolutely be cheaper. Here are the citations you asked for: http://www.opposingviews.com... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... "For one thing, I'd like some proof to back up your numbers. For another, you didn't really respond to what I said. You said nothing about applying the technologies sooner, or how someone could frame someone for a death sentence... so those points have been conceded. Also, how long does it take for a guy to be proved innocent from death row after he has been proved guilty? A month? A year? Finally, what you think is immoral is not immoral to the rest of the people." -It's possible to frame someone for a death sentence? Ever seen "The Life of David Gale?" Films aside though, the fact that people have been exonerated mean that technologies are NOT working, regardless of application. It's not a question of when, it's a question of new technologies always arising that help us determine people's guilt or innocence. We cannot simply speed up technologies that do that. They are created when they are created, thus application of technologies is not the issue; it is the DISCOVERY of new technologies that leads to exoneration so much of the time. The government executing one innocent person is tantamount to murder, is it not? Isn't killing an innocent person willfully, murder? If so, then the death penalty carries with it the probability that the government will murder someone. "If the prisoner would rather die than live a worthless life, because there's really no point in stopping him. He could strangle himself, or starve himself, or beat his head on the wall repeatedly. It's also really hard to find God without the help of a priest, unless you're already a Christian. Also, why would you want to keep someone alive if they're never going to actually do anything with it? And what about writing their will? If they're locked up in solitary confinement, it becomes really hard to contact your lawyer for such purposes. Could you give an example of meaning in life after imprisonment? Extended meaning in life? A prisoner could attack the guy who gives him food, and get out. Also, if a prison full of solitarily confined inmates suddenly gets hit by a flood or an earthquake, and the building collapses, and all of the inmates escape, then, well, there's a hundred more criminals out on the streets." -Firstly, I disagree entirely on the point of it being very difficult to find God without the help of a priest unless you're already a Christian. That statement also assumes the finding of a Christian god instead of any other religion's deity. Religion or spirituality can certainly be found on one's own. -Secondly, as to your point about keeping someone alive who won't "do anything with [their life]", doesn't that have serious implications outside this example? With that belief comes the belief that anyone in a coma should be killed, anyone in a vegetative state should be killed, anyone who will not live past the age of 3 will be killed, etc. All of these can follow from your statement. Those people will not be doing anything with their lives either, so why not kill them as well? Now, there may be reasons to pull the plug on a vegetative-brained person, but the "they won't do anything with their life" argument is not one. Also, prisoners in solitary confinement will never be a danger to other prisoners. They won't be a danger to guards either if solitary confinement becomes the norm. There would be much less of a chance of a solitarily confined prisoners attacking a guard than one on death row. -Thirdly, on the point of a flood or disaster crushing a jail and freeing prisoners: This seems a little off the mark to me. What if a flood hit a jail full of burglars? Burglars would be roaming the streets. Should we kill burglars so as to make sure they won't get out via natural disaster? If you have numbers as to how many prisoners have escaped via natural disaster, that would be helpful. "I'm not supporting it because it's quicker for the criminal; I'm supporting it because it's quicker for the rest of us. A person's right to life ends where they tried to take that right away from another." -A quick sentence of lifetime solitary confinement without any chance of parole would bring a quicker end. The punishment would be swift, the murderer would go to solitary forever, and there would be no long appeals process to keep the person of off death row because death row would not exist. Murderers stay on death row for a very long time and it draws out the process because taking a life is a big deal. If they were to simply meet their punishment immediately after sentencing, it would end the waiting and suffering of families of victims. -As to your last point, "A person's right to life ends where they tried to take that right away from another": Just because you find that to be moral does not mean everyone does, to use your own words. :) I feel you must defend that point.