the death penalty

Saving money was not one of the reasons for the death penalty in this argument. Applying the money else where other than keeping guilty murderers in lifetime prison was the argument. Using the money we spend for lifetime prisoners that killed others can be spent on improving the trial process and the justice system as a whole. How else are more innocent individuals found "innocent" in the past few years? Was it not improvement in the investigation process, new scientific techniques and advancement in technology? I agree that there is still the matter of human error. An in any situation, there will always be a special case no matter how much we try to avoid it. Even in mathematics, as unbiased as it is, there are still uncertainties and errors that just can't be solved. That's why we round and estimate to get as to close reality as possible. In this case, you said "the justice system does improve constantly, and thanks to scientific advancements, the chances of misinterpreting evidence are slim." As a result, it is now our responsibility to try and improve the current system as much as possible to make the chances of misinterpreting evidence even slimmer than ever. It is easier said then done and there are sacrifices that must be made. The innocent individuals are constantly brought up, but what is the real reason for the death penalty? Is it not mainly for the guilty criminals? You haven't mentioned them or presented a better solution. If the death penalty is eliminated, what will happen to those that are guilty of murder? The examples are real cases, not made up execution summaries. The only possible biased information I presented was the quote I included, in which argues the point of deterring criminals with the death penalty. I'm aware of the biased information from the sites. However, other than the quotes in which what I agree to an extent, all the other information are summary of facts on real execution cases. I've checked with other sources and determined these cases are valid before including it. Emotional appeal isn't productive and can be left out, but are you not committing the same fallacious argument you mentioned? I've just presented true example cases; it's up to the reader's judgment of the situation. From your first rebuttal, "I'm certain that those individuals who are found innocent after spending some time on death row were glad we "wasted" some money on them." If I am appealing to the emotions of people who like to see people get what they deserve, are you not appealing to sympathy and striking fear? I'm not sure if the words "grisly murders" are exactly void of emotions and ineffective to readers. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, grisly is inspiring horror or intense fear and also inspiring disgust or distaste. Again, the descriptions were merely a summary of real execution cases. Alan Gell wouldn't be the best example to use in this argument, but I can see where you're going with this. What is the greater good? Essentially, this is a form of utilitarianism. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, utilitarianism is "a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness [good] of the greatest number." No, the "greater good" is was not the alleged deterrent effect, but rather we do retain more guilty criminals, keeping them from causing more harm to the group at large. Note: Alan Gell was release in 2004 from death row and became an anti-death-penalty activist. In 2006, Gell was charged with cocaine possession and statutory rape of a former girlfriend, who was fifteen years old. http://lists.washlaw.edu... Wait, I'm confused with your argument here for malice. You're assuming that we execute someone knowing they're innocent. Why would we want to kill an innocent person with malice? The death penalty is given to those with reasonable evidence that they are guilty of murder. If you're saying the families of the victims are desperate to have someone dead for "closure" while the wrongdoer is still out and about, I doubt that's a valid argument. Okay, say there isn't the deterrent effect of capital punishment and we eliminate the death penalty. Do you think the murder rate will decrease as a result of this? What do we do with the guilty murderers? You have not provided a viable solution. We can stop capital punishment like you said. Stripped of the death penalty, the new legal system can best do now is to sentence them to life in prison. Based on your statistics, the murder rate has been consistent; thus, from these figures of merit the number of guilty murderers will just accumulate in prison. Space will be limited. Now, we ask ourselves the question, "Should we pack all the murderers together?" Now, let's think of how these prisoners got into prison in the first place. They killed someone. What is to stop them from reenacting their behaviors within the prison walls? With such limited space that prison will now offer, the psychological affects of being crammed with other inmates will bound to induce further violence. You can go as far as to say what an inmate will kill other fellow inmates for space. What is to stop them? They are no longer prone to the death chair. So would you say you rather let them die by each others hand within the prison walls? Isn't this another form of the death punishment for them? Doesn't the eighth constitutional amendment state that there is to be "no cruel or unusual punishment?" It will be almost impossible to regulate so many inmates in terms of searching them for weapons and safe guarding them from other prisoners and etc. No, we don't want this to occur. How bout we just put them all in solitary confinement where no interaction can be made with other inmates, we just need a few hundred more acres of land and a few billion more dollars for that. No problem right? Also, let's not forget the amount of money that it will take to fund them for the rest of their lives. All the prisons are full; we need more prisons and more guards as well. If you don't mind me asking, who will be funding all of this? You? Me? Why not just pull some money out of the health-care committee? "Did the execution of Jesus Christ deter Christianity?" Guilty murderers can't be compared to Jesus Christ. In saying so, you are putting Jesus Christ and the common people on the same level. Murderers do not have divine powers nor can they create supernatural proceedings, thus the comparison is not equivalent.