death penalty

To clarify in my last round when I said, "hope they are good" I was referring to my opponent not my arguments, ha ha.I reread and I see that I misunderstood you and thought you were saying the likely hood of escape was higher when receiving medical attention. This, though probably a likely case in the security of an individual, did not lead to any claim. Are you saying that because criminals can escape we should not attempt to imprison them?To the second point, the law has differing degrees for murder based on intentionality or level of negligence. Not all murder require nor receive the death penalty. I am not advocating that either. So when you say, "however if we were to kill every man or woman in every state who murdered someone I feel like it would be more than just 39" I agree but I am not saying that should or would be the case in the death penalty being permitted.As for my answer to the Death Penalty. I don't think there is convincing evidence that it works as a deterent. States with the death penalty have higher rates of murder in general. They also tend to have higher population density cities. So the punishment I don;t think is a factor in it's use.I think it is morally acceptable to take a life. In the right context. If that other life is threatening to take yours. By all means, kill them. War, Self Defense, Medical Abortions, etc... All can give you a better understanding of my moral grounds for doing so. For a better world I agree war will stop when people who fight it refuse to go. I think there can be better measures than to take a life. But those measures are not always effective or sufficient in changing the situation.I'll illustrate. Some one points a gun at me. (I use me because I am describing my moral grounds). Time permitting, I will ask them, "Why are you doing this?" In an attempt to start a dialogue and divert the situation away from having any one suffer. Maybe I can help them with the why, in a way that does not involve my death. Notice I said time permitting. The escalation could be so fierce and fast that a dialogue is not possible. A peaceful resolution has now been taken off the table. Leaving me the only options of submitting to being killed, or killing them. And being that I reasonably feel a right to life. I will fight for that right. I think everyone has that right. The other individual apparently does not feel the same. And in accordance with the golden rule "do onto others as you would have them do onto you."Moving on to murder. The better resolutions should be an attempt at rehabilitation and treatment. This is not always possible. Now society has 2 options. Life imprisonment of a repeat offender who murders, or death penalty. Some cases a person kills someone for a very specific and situational reason. That person is likely to be rehabilitated. But in the cases when an individual elects to harm whomever, wherever they deem fit, they are a threat to anyone. By anyone, we have no measure to who is in harms way if this person was free to roam society. To be aware of the threat and make no attempts to stop or lessen it, would be criminal negligence. So society is by obligation to do something with this type of person.If such a person, can not be rehabilitated, does not provide for himself (after all he is in prison), does not benefit society, and is a drain on societies resources. I see no reason to keep them alive.These factors allow for many other possibilities. Maybe the person is a repeat murderer. Maybe his actions are from deep frustrations that can not be treated. Maybe this person conforms to prison life and supervision and through a in prison work program contributes to society. Now I feel a compromise can be reached. I full heartily endorse attempts by many anti-death penalty agencies in prison reform. They truly help to make other options more viable. For life, anyone's life, even a murderer, makes that good in my book.