Death Penalty

I thank Con for his timely response. Note: these arguments are all directed at those who have been sentenced to life without parole. ::Morality:: As I said, I am not necessarily appealing to Hammurabi's code. I do agree that forgiveness is a virtue; however, a man needs not to be alive to be forgiven. As you say, all actions have consequences. If we have the right to take away one's freedom till death, why not their lives? After all, what is life without freedom? I don't see why it is imperative that we let a man live, who have murdered countless lives, just so he can reflect on his actions. What good does that do? He is simply draining resources from society just so we can give him a chance think about what he has done. Like I said, a man who does not respect one's right to live, gives up his own right's to life. "Would you not agree that by condemning someone to death, you have their blood on your hand's?" Of course, but I'm sure you will also agree that some deaths are justified. (Love the quote, btw) "This saying, I believe unleashes a landslide of truth. We are all human being's regardless, only our own life is in our hand's. We can never know, if he actually would have repented for his crime's." Again, what good does it do to let him repent? It doesn't bring back the dead or is beneficial to the rest of society in any way. Surely, he understands that to murder is wrong morally and is against the law with consequences? And yet despite this should this man choose to murder, and ignore another's right to live, then to what do we owe this man such a right to life? "One which I would not want to find myself in. In the following source we find that, of the people sentenced to death post 1973, atleast 2.3% of them were falsely accused. That add's up to a lot in my book." A fishermen on a trip have death rates of "1.07 deaths per 10,000 full-time fishermen"[1] does this mean we should stop fishing? My point is accidents happen. We can't anticipate them, and by the time we do, it's too late. This does not mean we should stop doing things that can lead to taking an innocent man's life. Simply driving can lead to the same result. http://www.oregonlive.com...[1] "In my opinion, no-one, absolutely, no-one should have the right to another's life. That is too much responsibility for anyone." While agreeably, it is a hefty responsibility, I disagree that it is too much responsibility. Furthermore, if we stopped doing things that we deemed were too much responsibility, what would we accomplish? We would always stay in our comfort zone, never advancing. That said, I agree, no one has the right to another's life, until that individual gives up their right to life. As I said before, I believe they give up this right when they deny other's that VERY right. ::Cost:: "You stated that it cost's less to imprison someone for life than it is to execute them, which I find is a compelling reason not to use the death penalty. You say that there should be alteration's and change's made to reverse this, but I think I have proved that, morally, that is not necessary. " And I disagree with you in terms of morality, though you advocate a reasonable one. So as long the death penalty remains, we should simply seek to make it cost effective, like most things. For instance, the trial of 9/11 could very well cost more than 400 million[2]. Not very cost effective at all. http://abcnews.go.com...[2] However, "Death penalty trials should be more cost effective" is another debate topic. Perhaps we could do such a debate in the future. ::Life Imprisonment:: "What you seem to be advocating is that prisoner's regardless of their crime (since you did not specify) should be treated with as little humanity as possible." If they committed such a crime that enables them to be in prison for life, then I am not advocating that they be treated with as little humanity as possible, I ask that they accept the consequence for their crimes and die with dignity. "However, studies show that prisoner's have a higher chance of rehabilitation if they are treated with a little respect." What is the point of rehabilitating someone who is going to be in a cage for the rest of his/her life? "By trying to eradicate the feeling of hatred, people tend to be more co-operative, making managing the Prison easier. That is why prisoner's have some luxuries like a gym and television, because an active mind a healthy mind. For instance, have you ever realised that kid's tend to cause more trouble when they are bored? Growing up in the Northern Ireland I found that when someone is bored, it lead's to anti-social disorder pretty quickly." Simply said, these prisoners, who are to be imprisoned for life, need televisions and gyms because they'll be bored, and being bored leads to trouble. Dead people can't be bored. "In response to your question, yes, I will concede that money would be better spent on the innocent and deprived, in a perfect world." In a perfect world, there wouldn't be criminals or deprived people. "But we don't live in a perfect world, far from it. There will alway's be crime, and therefore there will alway's be prison's." I agree, but that's no reason to no strive for perfection. If there is error, we must seek to correct it. My problem, with prison as a permanent resident for prisoners till death, is because it is both impractical and in my view unjust. And the above are my reasons. Again, I thank Con for his excellent responses. And look forward to the next round.