The Death Penalty Should stay legal.

Apologies for the typos i made in my previous argument. I'm guessing my keyboard malfunctioned.With regards to Con's first rebuttal please discuss briefly what you mean by "especially in our current court and legal system". Pro argues that threatening someone with a life sentence is not very effective in deterring crime. With a good attorney on your side, you actually have a chance of getting a reduced sentence, there is also a possibility of having a part of your sentence suspended for good behaviour. Furthermore if you are wealthy enough you are afforded with many added liuxuries which defeat the whole purpose of you beiing arrested (as a form of punishment). For example better living conditions, ipods and other gadgetshttps://www.prisonlegalnews.org...Pro argues that in prison murderers have the option to kill again. If they are imprisoned for life without parole, what exactly hinders them from killing again, what further punishment can be inflicted upon them besides a quasi-permanent solitary confinement (which on its own may be more "inhumane" than just killing the murderer). The mere fact that a person is in prison does not mean we should not recognize them as human beings who deserve as much protection from hardened murderers as anyone not in prison. Furthermore Con mentions the "impracticality" of the death penalty, please elaborate on this point. With regards to Con's second argument Pro argues that humans have an inherent right to human dignity which is recognized by the Constitution of most civilized countries and the United Nations Human Rights Charterhttp://www.un.org...According to this right the life of another human must be honoured and respected (which is broad enough to encompass the right to equality). This right gives a duty to other individuals to act in a moral manner towards other humans, By killing another person the murderer does not adhere to the principles laid down in the United Nations Charter, as such a punint proportionate to the crime he/she has committed is necessary. The term justice is defined as the quality of being fair and reasonable.This implies that a retributive stance must be adopted especially when dealing with crimes that greatly infringe on society's rights (it also infringes on society's right to safety and security). It therefore follows that a criminal must be punished for the wrongs he has committed and the punishmnent inflicted must meet the crime that has been committed. People must not be seen as a mere means to an ends, as such the lives of innocent victims must be valued. If we allowed justice to fall away human life in general would hold no value in this world. Is this the world we want to live in? Please refer to the part where Pro stated that penalty would "indefinitely" lower crime rates. Pro ponders on whether or not you fully read and understood pro's first argument:"Pro understands and acknowlegdes the research data Con may use to prove that the murder rate is lower in states and countries without the death penalty, but that is not entirely true, it is not universal and ignores certain factors such as ...Let's not create words and statements which have not been used"we do not live in that sort of society any longer."Which society are you referring to and what society do we now live in?"Well, who's to say the person WON'T commit the crime again?"http://www.wesleylowe.com...The source referred to above is a list of repeat offenders who upon release went on to kill again, although this is only a short list it serves as evidence supporting Pro's argumentAppeals are a natural process in legal proceedings, the fact that 2/3 death penalty convictions have been overturned on appeal serves to show that justice is indeed fair and if someone remains in death row after appeal it is likely that he actually committed the said crime