Capital Punishment is not Immoral and Should be Used

1) "It is true that innocent people are sometimes sentenced to death, but it is also true that innocent people are sentenced to 30 years in prison or more. What is worse? Dying then and there or spending 30 years of your life in prison and being unable to start over when released in your 50's? [1] We will never get to a point when 100% of the convicted people are guilty. There will always be some innocent people convicted for crimes they did not do." You will find that if you read the article from http://www.deseretnews.com... (the source you provided) that Cornelius Dupree Jr. was given a good amount of money to last him a lifetime due to the error made. There is also the fact that if he chose to work again that he is over 10 years away from the average retirement age and due to the exoneration will be able to live his life happily and without any charges affecting his opportunities.[1] As for the concept of dying instead of spending the 30 years in jail, think about this quote: "Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all." [2] While this does not directly speak about this situation, if you think about the meaning, it can be applied. Would you rather die for a crime never committed, or serve time in jail until exonerated and be able to live the rest of your life freely? 2) "If the criminal murdered someone, why should not they deserve the same degree of punishment as the damage they inflicted on their victims? Why should we give them another chance to rethink their lives in prison?" Guilt can be one of the most powerful emotions. It can cause change or self-inflicted torture, but it only occurs and grows with time. If you just sentence someone to death, they will never have the opportunity to experience guilt. Should they not repent for or at least regret it their crimes? Or should they just be killed, still believing it was right. "Every guilty person is his own hangman." -Lucius Annaeus Seneca (http://www.brainyquote.com...) Many murders are also committed by someone who is high or drunk. They do not know the extent of what they are doing until later on. If you go to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... and read table 2, you will see that a very large percentage of homicides are committed while under the influence of drugs. 3) "Even though the accomplice did not "pull the trigger", he or she is still at the same level of fault as the ones who did the actual killing. Without the accomplice's help, the murderer would not be successful." If they are at the same level of fault, then why does one get killed and the other does not. And in the case of the article I presented previously [3], why does the other get parole? 4) "Ask yourself this. Which is more important? The criminal feeling "guilt" (a criminal that kills people on a regular basis cannot possibly be moral enough to feel guilt) in a prison for some time, or the safety of the people after the murderer is once again released? The answer to this question is obvious." Many who have killed do feel regret or remorse. Serial killers are the main exception to this because they are typically sane and not under any outside influences. There are a small number of serial killers who are diagnosed with a mental disorder.[4] What I said in response to number two also applies to your statement. [1] http://lifeinc.today.com... & http://money.cnn.com... [2] http://www.phrases.org.uk... [3] http://articles.latimes.com... [4] http://forensicpsych.umwblogs.org...