Death Penalty- Killing 3 times and your NOT out...

Ok I see what you mean by with the solitary confinement. 1. I don't see why we should be taking care of a murderer. Why should we pay for his food, clean clothes, showers, guards, safety, and upkeep for the prison he/she is in. I personally don't want to take care of a murderer that will kill anyone especially the guards that are taking care of him/her. 2. Even in solitary confinement, prisoners have still have a chance to kill a guard or attempt an escape. Solitary confinement still isn't painful for a prisoner. Some see it as a statue of being more "bad" then other regular prisoners. In there mind, they are satisfied that they achieved such a title to be a prisoner of solitary confinement. Many (if not most) prisoners pee and poopie on the floor and not in the toilet to make guards work harder and clean it up. They live around in their own urine and it doesn't disturb them. There has been too many cases when a prisoner has tried to grab a guard's hand or attempt an escape. We can't accuse him of it because he is already in solitary confinement. What is the point of making a case against him or punishing him. They aren't like regular humans. They've been trained to live tough. First, they are use to the prison life. Then they get in "the hole" more and more. And when they reach solitary confinement, they already know how it feels to live in tough conditions. 3. Solitary confinement is like chaining up a dog in a metal box that he can move around. It seems like you won't be able to stand living that way but we are humans, we are animals. As animals we adapt to the conditions we have. For example, in "Between a Rock and a hard place", a human has his arm stuck between 2 rocks and is in the middle of a forest. He urinates on himself to keep cool and drinks it to keep hydrated. He performs surgery on himself to cut off his arm. I'm pretty sure, solitary confinement is a horrible place compared to the dangers humans have faced throughout history. 4. No, I am merely saying, for all we know it is not a punishment. Maybe we all go to heaven and the murderers must be having a drink with Jesus right now. I simply, think we should not have murderers with us if they are not with our laws that the majority of people believe in and have voted on. 5. I'm not allowing a person to kill again. I suggest the person receives a second chance after spending time in jail. Obviously, if that person changed in jail he would have a clean record of jail time. The person would not have been in a gang in jail or stabbed or done drugs while he was in jail. Then the person deserves a second chance. If that person kills again, it is obvious that he hasn't changed in jail. He should receive life in prison and/or solitary confinement. "He only get out of jail the first time, if he served a clean record of jail time." 6. You can not be classified as something if you did it once. Classifying a person as a murderer should only be done if a person intended to kill someone. Let's say a criminal kills someone because the victim did something to the criminal. Now let's compare that to, a criminal is hurt by an individual and plans out an action to kill the victim. Or a gang member kills a "granny" just because his leader told him to. The first punishment really should just depend on the type of murder that was taken. The others really don't depend on the murder since the criminal is then be titled as a murderer. I really meant to show that we should use the death penalty and was using a 3 strike rule as an example. Although, I put killing 3 times and your out as the title of the debate. I also want to add that the debate was made somewhat incorrectly by my part but I'm sure "death penalty: pro or con" is what the majority of people will understand it as.