The death penalty is completely unconstional.

I personally feel that you have not premeditated the constitution with enough intensity, specifically amendment 14. "When somebody commits a crime he or she is no longer provided these rights." Actually, what if the person is innocent? As I have reported, 1 out of six people on death row are innocent. In addition you have not provided a valid case, when you declare that it is unconstitutional for someone to be placed in jail for a period of time, is completely just, as long as the person is innocent, and has had an opportunity to speak in a court of jury. You also have made it clear that, in your opinion, it is a constitutional and just punishment to protect the rights of citizens. However, I have a humane supplementary proposal that does not invade their own rights or the rights of the public. They could rather have a life sentence, as an alternative to death. Furthermore, I believe jail is an exceptional substitute to death and does not invade the freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, because first off, they have their life preserved. Second, it is liberty because it gives them time to reflect upon what they have done. Although they may not be happy, it is clearly impossible to make every human happy. For example, one person could be happy as ruler of the world, while another would like no human to ever make a mistake. The pursuit of happiness is evidently justified to its limits, and if it protects the rights of other citizens, and saves a life, I think it is reasonably just and humane to put a person in jail, rather then put to death. Additionally, I am appalled that you think killing a HUMAN BEING is just, and constitutional. After all, death is death. There is no bringing anyone back from the dead. They are gone forever, and can not be brought back even if they have done something great and the public has been immune to it, even later realizing OOPS! They were the wrong person! Oh well… And if you think I am lying about innocent people being put to death, I have a good little story for you, which I will communicate to you in my next point. Have you ever heard the story about Joan of Arc? Maybe a little perhaps? Well, if you don't, I will explain it to you, in a relatively brief article from Wikipedia, at this address; [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Joan of Arc, or Jeanne d'Arc in French,[1] (c. 1412 – May 30, 1431)[2] was a 15th century saint and national heroine of France. She was the only person ever recorded to have commanded the entire army of a nation at the age of seventeen. She was captured by the English and tried by an ecclesiastical court led by Bishop Pierre Cauchon, an English partisan; the court convicted her of heresy and she was burned at the stake by the English when she was nineteen years old. Twenty-four years later, the Vatican reviewed the decision of the ecclesiastical court, found her innocent, and declared her a martyr. She was beatified in 1909 and canonized as a saint in 1920.[2] Joan asserted that she had visions from God that told her to recover her homeland from English domination late in the Hundred Years' War. The uncrowned King Charles VII sent her to the siege at Orlï¿½ans as part of a relief mission. She gained prominence when she overcame the dismissive attitude of veteran commanders and lifted the siege in only nine days. Several more swift victories led to Charles VII's coronation at Reims and settled the disputed succession to the throne. The renewed French confidence outlasted her own brief career. She refused to leave the field when she was wounded during an attempt to recapture Paris that autumn. Hampered by court intrigues, she led only minor companies from then onward and fell prisoner at a skirmish near Compiï¿½gne the following spring. A politically motivated trial convicted her of heresy. The English regent John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford had her burnt at the stake in Rouen. She had been the heroine of her country at 17 and died when only 19 years old. Some 24 years later, Pope Callixtus III reopened the case, and a new finding overturned the original conviction. Her piety to the end impressed the retrial court. Pope Benedict XV canonized her on May 16, 1920. So basically, they had her sentenced to death at stake, for nothing, and was 24 years later found innocent. WHOOPS! So do you think that, that was constitutional in any way? After all you said that it was better for the rights of the public, correct? Also, in your argument, you have completely avoided the cruel punishment part of the topic. At least if there was going to be a death penalty it should be quick! I have disproved everything you have said, and provided factual information, examples, and even a real story! So I feel, my view on this topic clearly is correct and constitutional, with specific details to denote my views. (also no offense, and voters, do not vote purely on this, but your opening statement was way too short… just some advice….)