The Death Penalty

I will be arguing the pro side of the death penalty. Rebuttals: My opponent stated the following: "It costs more and is morally wrong. " Moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Whether or not something is morally wrong is an opinion presented by the person saying it. Arguments: For my argument, I will use the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Osama's first recorded attack killed two innocent people. Osama also funded the Luxor massacre which killed 62 more innocent people. In 1998, Osama sent more people out to assist in the killing of 5000-6000 more people. Osama was also responsible for the attacks occurring on September 11, 2001. Which lead to four stolen commercial passenger aircraft and 2996 innocent people killed. 71 of those people were officers, 343 of them were firefighters, and 55 of them were military personnel. On top of the death, many families were left devastated due to the loss of a loved one. From another view point, almost 2 trillion dollars went into the damage of September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2, 2011. He was shot and, after identifying it was really him, buried out in sea. He was killed in the most honorable way possible. Seal Team Six(The Navy Seals team that went in to kill Osama) did not publicly kill him. They didn't even behead him to post a threat to other terrorists. They simply killed him because he was a danger to other humans. So there is nothing morally wrong about what Seal Team Six did to Osama bin Laden. Now I am going to just talk about the death penalty in a more objective way with no examples or backup. The way someone earns the death penalty differs based on the state you live in. I live in Tennessee so I will just use Tennessee's law for the death penalty. Tennessee: First-degree murder (Tenn. Code Ann. " 39-13-202) with 1 of 16 aggravating circumstances (Tenn. Code Ann. " 39-13-204). Someone that kills someone else deserves to die. No questions asked. Not just because what they did is wrong, but because they're now a threat to others. You can't release a murderer no matter how much time they spend in jail. So if we have no death penalty. we would be forced to give them a life-time jail time. That means you have to provide a place for this person to sleep, eat, use the bathroom, and also provide any medical needs for the prisoner. On top of this, the person is going to have to be heavily guarded. Which means you need a well trained staff(training costs even more money) that is constantly guarding the prisoner. The staff isn't going to work for free so you have to pay them. One more not before I finish the first round. Most felonies don't have much a life. They probably don't even have a job. Which means no house, no food, no car, no family. They live a life of nothing. So if you give them a life sentence in jail you're basically saying, "Sureee you killed that innocent family, but I'm gonna go ahead and give you a place to sleep and eat for the rest of your life. " By not killing them, you're giving them a better life than the one they had before. What punishment is that? Conclusion: Wether or not the death penalty is morally wrong is a matter of an opinion. If the justice system decides not to kill a man than thats a life they have to now take care and keep from other innocent people. Feeding a felony everyday is in no way a punishment. So the death penalty is the only way to save innocent people from murders & mass murders. And its also the only way to properly punish the murderers. Sources: . http://tinyurl.com... . http://tinyurl.com... . http://tinyurl.com...