One of the issues in your profile.

"--> 6% of murderers repeat their crime? What of the 94% who don't repeat their crime? Clearly, the majority of killers do not make the same mistake again and therefore have a chance to repent and reform." 6% is far too many. Can you look the family of people murdered by repeat offenders in the eye and say "I thought they would repent." I assume not. Murderers need to be kept off the streets, permanently, we need to save innocent lives, and capital punishment saves them. "--> Every execution prevents 8 murders? Doesn't that contradict your previous statement which says that only 6% of murderers repeat their crime?" No, I'm speaking of the deterrent effect of the death penalty. It deters others from murdering. "--> Indeed murder is bad. That, however, doesn't justify executing the murderer because the act of execution is also considered murder. More good is also not caused by executing the murderer because it is in human nature that we, as people, are able to change and be reformed." Murder is killing an innocent, capital punishment is killing a guilty man, who may kill again, and if not, the execution will save 8 people. "--> Legal does not equal just. The Supreme Court's decisions are based on human judgement which is fallible. Taking away a HUMAN life sounds pretty cruel to me. The accused person could be someone's parent or someone's children. Tearing families apart is very heartless thing to do." This was a rebuttal to your argument that it was unconstitutional. Human Judgement may be fallible, but it does not fail countless times on the same issue. "--> The chances of an innocent being executed may be small, but yet the risk is still there. 25 people have been wrongfully executed since the start of this century. The reason for you supporting the death penalty is to protect the lives of the innocent and prevent their murder. How is this possible when innocents are being executed? Therefore, it is nothing like Saying the death penalty is immoral because it might kill one innocent is like saying the chicken pox shot is immoral, because it might kill one person. Innocent people have ALREADY been killed." And more than 25 people have died from the chicken pox shot. Is it a huge deal? No, because comparatively we save many innocent lives. It's very much the same thing. You kill when you save, it's inevitable. Just think, who do you want to save, an innocent, or a murderer. Oh, and by the way, 60% of those executed "innocents" had no evidence suggesting they were innocent. "--> Indeed, SOME people (the 6%) will never change. But what of the 94% who do change? They deserve the chance to change. Executing them will prevent that from happening." Just because they didn't murder again doesn't mean they suddenly became a wonderful person. Besides, with the death penalty, the statistic will be 0%. We need to save innocent lives, reforming the lives of murderers should not be our priority. "--> Saving lives is just, but not when it occurs at the expense of others' lives. No one person is truly evil and nor is one person completely good. People can change and preventing that from happening is the true evil." You need to sacrifice lives sometimes. People have to die, it's your choice though, a few murderers of many innocents. "The death penalty is an unjust form of punishment. An eye for an eye and the world will be blind." It's not an eye for an eye, we are killing them to save lives. That must be society's focus. Innocent lives are much more important than murderer's lives. Also, voters, remember, only the worst get murdered. First degree premeditated murder gets capital punishment, while crimes of passion would not. These are people who made a conscious choice to do evil. "