The Death Penalty should be abolished

Both of the cases you stated are hyperbolic in the extreme. Nazis were committing genocide, killing dozens of people who had not actually committed a crime. The Janjaweed statement is in essence false – the Janjaweed is NOT the government in Sudan, the Sudanese government is simply ineffective at stopping them, and they are playing politics with the UN, trying to come out ahead economically just to allow the UN to come in and stop that Genocide. *" war = a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation…" Your definition does not provide an answer. Is "Murder" morally reprehensible if it is committed during war? crimes by and large are not committed on the scale that would merit the possibility of capital punishment because while people are not so afraid of going to jail, they are afraid of the potentiality of being put to death. + You can assume that … the death penalty is feared. You originally said, "Nobody is afriad of the death penalty so it is ineffective. People are afriad of prison. You never hear, "I would but I don't want to get the death penalty." You do hear, "I would. I don't want to go to jail."" My point was refuting you assertion that "No one is afraid of the death penalty" which was derived from the rather vague "because you never hear anyone say" that they are afraid of it. In fact, many people are not afraid of going to prison; especially those who have been in before, and as such know how to function in a prison society. The point is, people are more willing to commit smaller crimes/felonies because they are not as afraid of going to jail as they are of the death penalty. + Killing them …make them suffer …" *Are you advocating that people should SUFFER for their crimes. To suffer sounds an awful lot like that cruel and unusual punishment you were talking about earlier. Prisoners should be held accountable for their crimes, but suffering should not be inflicted upon any person by their government. + Death penalty appeals are ALWAYS … did not commit the crime!!! *This statement of yours is patently untrue. An appeal may ONLY be granted if there is just cause for an appeal, there must be new evidence, or evidence that something was not carried out as it was supposed to be. The second statement you made is also patently untrue. There are many cases in which an alleged criminal may walk free despite undeniable evidence, on a simple technicality, like whether or not the gun a crime was committed with was in plain sight when the person was arrested, or any number of instances where one slight slip up on the part of the police can allow a criminal to go free. +If not rendered unconscious, the inmate will feel excruciating pain… is unusual as well. *This does bring up an interesting concept. Perhaps the delivery of the death penalty should be re conceived. The reason why "needles have been found in soft tissue" is because doctors are not allowed to perform the procedures because of their Hippocratic oath to do no harm. However, if an updated form of the guillotine were brought back into practice (perhaps now with hydraulic cutters) the procedure would be exceedingly quick and painless. * whether or not the prison system as a whole is bias, is a topic for another debate. + Debate the point. Are you going to allow this genocide of the minorities to continue? *I refuse to debate the point here. It will do nothing but waste space in my response. If you want to debate me on this point, challenge me to a debate specifically about the bias of the prison system. Additionally, I deplore being accused of "allowing genocide to continue" as this is a Straw Man Argument (a fallacy) an Argument from Outrage (another fallacy) a dysphemism , and a Loaded Question (a third fallacy). A blatant use of rhetoric without any actual argument present, a statement only meant to bias any witnessing this debate. + How can you admit that murdering innocent people is fine? You could be one of these innocent people who unsuddenly gets murdered. *Another fallacy, Scare Tactics, and dysphemism (being put to death is not murder.) Also, what I said was "This does happen, such cases are in the minority, and as you stated earlier, the person in question has many opportunities for appeal, as such you would not be "suddenly murdered for a crime you didn't commit," there is nothing sudden about the death penalty." At no point did I say that "murdering innocent people is fine" (another straw man argument/loaded question/perfection fallacy.) It is a perfection fallacy because, while the system is not perfect ( as no system mankind has created is ) it is a sad truth that from time to time innocent people may be put to death, however, as I said before, these cases are in the EXTREME minority, as such the death penalty as a whole should not be scrapped because it is not perfect, and by and large it does its job. *This is by and large not true, very few convicted felons are able to re-adapt to society, few can get jobs worth having, and as such most return to lives of crime. * One, a convicted felon is apparently not a "good citizen" as they were convicted of a FELONY which is a rather heinous crime. Additionally, "studies have usually found three-year rates of rearrest for released prisoners ranging from 50 to 70 percent" (http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us...) so most people who commit felonies, go to prison and are released, generally go out and commit more crimes. These people are NOT good citizens. *The only reason for a decreased amount of appeals in other court cases is that many cases are plea bargained, as such, they have no room to appeal because they plead guilty for a reduced sentence. Obviously no one is going to have "plead guilty" to a crime in order to receive the death penalty. * the trials are held at the same pace as any trial, and as such the right to a speedy trial is no more infringed upon an alleged murderer than a person convicted of speeding. + Prove this. It is an opinion and I disagree. * Gladly "Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial," taking right from the Bill of Rights. As all death penalty cases are CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS they are held to the same standard of "speediness." * You ignored the whole thing about Hammurabi's code… "eye for an eye" was the first step towards civilization. And it is no longer an eye for an eye. If we still went by that standard, if a murderer raped, tortured, and then murdered his victims, we would then rape, torture and murder him. We do not do so. We humanely end his existence.* "Prisons are more effective" is an opinion, I disagree. Prove your statement. And "murdering a murderer" is a dysphemism. * Point one: All countries do not hate the United States. In fact, most are still exceedingly welcoming, and even China, our big "communist threat" is helping us out financially and putting forth massive amounts of money to have students from America come to China, learn to speak Chinese, and teach Chinese people English. Point two: Yes we should solve our problems rather than saying "look at our bigger problems," but the reason we need to look at the bigger problems is because those are the important ones. If a boat has huge holes in it, and the paint is coming off, and you're in the boat in the middle of a lake, are you going to try to plug the holes, or repaint boat? * Your first statement is false, as the death penalty exists, and is in use, apparently there are plenty of jurors who are willing to be responsible for some one's EXECUTION I did not say that we SHOULD let the mass murderer go for a smaller crime (stop putting words in my mouth) I said there are usually lesser crimes they may be found guilty of if the evidence does not support verdict of guilty on a capital offence.