The Death Penalty

"Should a man be killed for his actions? I, for one, think so. If you believe in the bible, as many of us do, you will know it specifically states "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'" Mathhew 5:38. This basically means "if you kill someone, you yourself should be killed"." This is a terrible argument and is extraordinarily misleading. You chopped off the quote to completely and totally misinterpret it. The full quote is as follows: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." The bible is completely and totally against your argument. Jesus of Nazareth preached that if someone has done you wrong, you should NEVER take revenge because revenge is taken only by God. Vengeance is one of the seven deadly sins, remember? "Now, going back to the bible, it also says "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away." Mathhew 5:30. This basically means "If you have harmed another, repent by be harmed yourself."" This is also a very incorrect quote. You once again chop it off at the part where it is most important. I think your knowledge of scripture is either lacking, or you are being deliberately misleading. "27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." This passage was in Jesus of Nazareth's account of adultery. It has nothing to do with redeeming yourself of sin. It is saying that things that give you pleasure, if they taint your soul, should be given up no matter how pleasurable it is. "With these statements from what many consider "the good book", many would be in favor of the death penalty, now wouldn't they? Well, the bible isn't the only reason for the death penalty. It just backs it up." I seriously doubt it. Christians wouldn't believe it because they know you misinterpreted. I'm an atheist and even *I* recognize the errors in your argument. Your use of the bible is void and greatly hurts your argument instead of helping it even a little bit. "The second reason, and most important, is fear. If murders knew that they were going to get killed after killing intentionally, the wouldn't kill." It has already been shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent for murder. There are many states and even countries that have LOW murder rates without the death penalty, and many states where murder rates are high even WITH the death penalty. So the argument of the death penalty deterring murder is completely useless. "Many murders could have been stopped. For example, BTK, incase you don't know of him, was a mass murder from Kansas. BTK was captured a few years ago, and he killed many people over a period of years (he stopped for about seven years before starting once more). When sentanced, he recieved three life sentances. That may seem like much, but it allows him chance for escape, and chance to kill again. If the death penalty was put upon him, this would have been an example for other potential murders, and murder rates would have dropped for at least one year, until another murderer sprang up, killed, got caught, and was killed." This example has almost nothing to do with the argument whatsoever. All you did was bring up an example of a serial killer who was caught. You argue that he has the potential to escape, but he didn't You argue that he can kill again, but he hasn't. In that case, I can argue that he'll give everyone in the world a pony and a cauldron of gold, but until I have some sort of claim for that statement, my argument is void, as is yours. Even if you find an example of a murderer who was not given the death penalty, then escaped, then killed again, it would not help your argument much because there are relatively few cases. "Those are my reasons for the death penalty." I responded to all of those, so I am going to give you my reasons for why the death penalty is nearly useless. First of all, I reiterate the fact that there is NO statistical correlation between a jurisdiction having the death penalty and lower murder rates. Some may match, but all over the world, the results are mixed. Second, there are many more cases of people being framed or wrongly accused. With the advent of DNA evidence, dozens of "murderers" sentenced to life were released. Many could not because they were given the death penalty. We can't free a dead man from death, so in case our judicial system screws up (and it does) we should be able to offer repercussions to an innocent man we punished wrongly. Third, a life sentence is just as good as death. They are given no chance of parole and are kept away from society, just as if though they were dead. But it's much, MUCH more affordable. The appeals process for the death penalty takes up a lot of money from the state for all sorts of legal fees. Massive amounts of money. In fact, it is common fact that the appeals process goes on for years and on average, costs more than keeping the murderer alive in prison for the rest of his/her life.