The Death penalty should be abolished in all states of America.

I would like to take a moment to thank my opponents for his great arguments. I would appreciate it, if you would watch this small video clip that basically explains how the death penalty brings justice to the families of the victims that were killed. I don't know about you, but I would not like men like this living in society after what they have done. This is where the death penalty brings justice to society! http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... His first arguments: Surely everyone should be given the opportunity to reflect on what ever crime they have committed, no matter how bad the crime they committed was. Sentencing someone to the death penalty is crushing any hope of that ever happening. My response to this: A majority of the criminals that are put on the death penalty, have either had several offenses or committed murder in the first degree. This being the case, the criminal has had multiple chances to "change or reflect" and does not value the life of the individual or individuals that he/she has murdered. Then why should we value the criminals life. I realize that this does sound extremely inhumane, but we must look at the bigger picture. If society is safer with that individual gone, we must do the greater good for the most amount of people. His second argument: The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. My response to this: I am having a difficult time understanding this point. As I brought up earlier in this debate, the cost to society of keeping a person in prison for 20 years at a cost of more than $50,000 per year. Now, I have added this up in my head... (I am not very good at math.) Lets say a criminal is in the prison system for 50 years. 50,000*50= around 2 and a half million dollars per inmate. How can the death penalty be more expensive than supplying food, water, a cell and any medical attention for a life sentence for a prisoner? This just does not add up to me.... maybe you could go into a little more detail about this argument. His third argument: Here have also been around 127 people who have been released from death row since 1976, who had compelling evidence that they were innocent behind them. My response to this: There is the chance that an innocent person may be executed. This too is a valid concern, and I certainly don't wish for the death of someone innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. But it seems that the instance of this happening is low. According to many online sources, there are currently about 10 cases, perhaps more, of executions for which the accused may have been innocent (although this has not been proved). Since there have been 1,266 executions since the U.S. Supreme Court imposed moratorium was lifted in 1976, this means that perhaps around 0.01% of executions during this time period have been wrongful. That to me is an acceptable risk for an institution that should remain. Traffic accidents cause tens of thousands of fatalities, many patients die on the operating table or in the hospital, and police continue to carry firearms even though every year innocent people are shot and killed by them (acceptable risks). Yet I don't see many death penalty opponents called for a moratorium on driving, surgery, hospitals, or the use of firearms by police. More on point, in one 17 month period in 1995, criminals released "under supervision" committed 13,500 murders and 200,000 other violent crimes. Were the victims of these crimes not "innocent?" How many "innocent" lives might have been saved if only a portion of these criminals were executed? Less than ten? My opponents last argument: 8.5 Percent of prisoners who were let out on parole committed crimes again while out. ( America ) This is a very small majority. Most prisoners do not re offend after being let out. If their crime was serious enough they will be given life without parole. The people who commit the worst crimes are most likely to commit again My response to this: "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence Even if your statistics are correct, is having any criminals repeat their crime worth it. If they are murdering again, they have not learned there lesson and are only harming society. Where I found my info! http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...