the death penalty is justified.

"the death penalty is being used to prove that murder is wrong. any form of punishment for any form of crime is proving that the act committed was wrong. thus the death penalty is just a hypocritical thing for our goverment to scare us with. " Non Sequitor, Argumentum Ad Nauseum. Simply repeating your point does not make it any better, especially when I have already made a counterpoint. No punishment ever proves that the crime is wrong. You can't say that my giving you a parking ticket PROVES that double parking is wrong. A punishment does not exist without a crime. Thus, a punishment cannot be used to prove the wrongness of an act. Therefore, the death penalty does not PROVE that murder is wrong. "the death penalty isnt even a detterent in the slightest since. in the states that have the death penalty and actually carry it out there are more murders than those states that do not. so how then can u say that the death penalty is a deterrent?" I disagree with your argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent in the slightest sense. Your "facts" compare the murder rates of states with the death penalty against the states with OTHER FORMS OF PUNISHMENT. If you wish to argue that the death penalty is NOT A DETERRENT IN THE SLIGHTEST SENSE, you must compare states with the death penalty against states that have absolutely no punishment for murder. You may argue that the death penalty is not the BEST way of deterring criminals, but it is absurd to argue that the death penalty DOES NOT DETER CRIMINALS AT ALL. "ill admit we do live in a world where we feel we must be vindictive towards the people who do us wrong. but does that mean we should take a life? what about the family of the person who was executed how would u think they would feel? dont u think they would want something in return for the loss of their loved one as well?" I'm not dealing with what people may want, or would want. I'm focusing on justice, equality, and fairness. However, I will counter that point by asking you "What about the family of the victim? Who wins, the family of the victim or the family of the convicted? Who gets bargaining rights and is it even ETHICAL for the MURDERER to get bargaining rights?" The answer is simple. The convicted has overstepped his rights and committed an irreversible act. On no grounds can he, or his family, argue that his life should be spared for any reason, because he was not wronged. "and there are other means of punishing people. the death penalty is more expensive than just keeping them in a high security cell here in a texas prison for the rest of their life." I don't think money should be an issue when we are talking about murder, human lives, morality, ethics, and justice. "so if we are just looking to punish them we shouldnt give them death that is giving them the easy way out because they dont have to think about the fact they killed someone." I find this to be an unconvincing argument. We cannot hope to control a person's conscience, so this is a very ineffective method of punishment. If the person has murdered, there is also the chance that he feels absolutely no guilt. How do you intend to use this argument in such a situation? "so the only good that the death penalty is doing is keeping or let me say attempting to keep our population under control." Not necessarily. I feel that the death penalty is still more suited to the punishment than life imprisonment because it is much more severe and appropriate. There are many cases where "an eye for an eye" will not work, but as murder is defined as the deliberate and willful destruction of innocent human life, arguably the worst crime that can be committed. Justice implores that a punishment should fit the crime, and I do not see how life imprisonment can make up for the loss of a life.