Death Penalty

"first off: i would like to know the chance somebody dies from death penalty that was wrongly convicted? and the website please. Why should somebody who has killed another person be able to live in a place were they are taken care of. They get free food. a place to sleep and a place to play. they can even get paid. " To address your first question, a study by Northwestern University revealed that in the state of Illinois alone, juries wrongfully convicted someone 12.5% of the time. This is for all cases but that still shows the chance of error in our judicial system. That means that one in every eight people is found guilty of a crime they didn't commit. To address the second part of your statement, they should be able to live because every life has value. Killing one person doesn't bring another person back. It is our moral obligation to still acknowledge the right to life of these convicts. In the words of J. R. R. Tolkien, Oxford scholar and widely acknowledged as an upstanding moral individual, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. " Furthermore, New Mexico and Colorado are currently reconsidering their stances on the death penalty because, according to Governor Bill Richardson, the death penalty actually costs taxpayers more money than life in prison. So I ask you this, why should we spend more money just to kill someone? "When somebdoy is sentenced to death. they don't die the very next day. there is time from when they are sentenced to it and to the actually death date. so there is time of appeal and or for officals to find evidence. " Here's a little timeline for you: 2007: Chief Justice Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is charged on 7 counts of misconduct because she improperly closed a court to the appeal of Michael Richard shortly before he was to be executed. It is believed that if she had not done this, he would have received a lesser sentence. February 11, 2009: Wayne Tompkins is executed when his guilt still remained in question. The prosecution never even proved that the alleged victim had died because several witnesses testified to seeing him alive after his supposed death. February 19, 2009: Edward Bell is executed for the murder of a police officer. He was denied an appeal because his lawyers failed to present sufficient evidence in the first trial. Unfortunately, the judicial system does not always work. These are only three instances. I can cite many more. "It does everything to refrute your point. it does matter how different they are so it is not biased. if it wasn't for them then it would only be one person who decides. now that seems desturbing. These people help bring justice to this crazy world we live in" Greg, you obviously do not understand this point. It doesn't matter how moral or different or unbiased they are. The jurors could be Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. , Buddha, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, Jeremy Bentham, Romeo Dallaire, Billy Graham, any other three world-renowned moral figures. It doesn't matter. It still means that a group of twelve people can say who lives and who dies. They aren't perfect. They're still human and still make mistakes. Twelve people, or twelve thousand people for that matter, should not have the moral authority to decide if someone's life is less valuable than any of theirs. In the words of Jesus, "All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone! " "Please know what you are talking about before you post. " I would appreciate it if you could actually stick to the debate at hand and not resort to trying to win the case by personally insulting me. Especially since its hypocritical in the fact that you post arguments about a moral issue by saying that a group composed of different kinds of people has the power to decide if its moral or not. This is purely a moral issue. It is impossible to discuss life and death without morality. I have clearly shown how the death penalty and everything it entails is immoral, while my opponent has argued that we need the death penalty to avenge those that die. He never even bothered to disagree that it was immoral, even thought i stated that in my very first argument! For this reason, you can feel completely comfortable voting for me.