Capital Punishment

Ok I as Con will present my case to be divided as: Defining the crime is not defining the person, the person being mentally competent can change, and then my conclusions. Defining the crime is defining the person. It is true if one kills he he/she has committed a horrendous crime, but why has the person done so? For example, if one person kills another person because they had killed their sister, but was released because they had various connections and that person kills the one who killed their sister than should the death penalty still exist for that person? Or in your terms should the death penalty only exist for killing more than one person? Killing is killing, so either way the death penalty would occur. Now if the person faces death penalty for killing a person who was roaming around freely even though he had committed a crime and killed a beloved sister and a daughter, then there is no justice towards that. And what if you killed someone for self defense and could not prove to the court that he/she was innocent, then what? Give them the death penalty? There are so many wrongly accused for murdering people whom they did not, and if these people were killed instead of the murders, then? Now if someone had killed a lot of people, but had done it because he/she was raised up to behave in this way but could change, then should they be given the chance? For example terrorism. Many people had been taught from a young age to believe that the Quran and Allah in a sense wanted them to commit these terrorist acts. The child grew up and killed a lot of people, was caught and realized his errors, and wanted to change but could not redeem himself and was killed. Yes the chances of the guy killing again is a possibility but psychologists studying these kids should make well informed decision about whether to release the kid or not-with various other procedures involved. If that same person would help more people, then he would become someone who changed for the better, and helped people in distress. If countries actually take the initiative to try to change people than it can be done, rather than be done with them and kill them. Plus killing them would make us murders too would it not? Killing is killing you cannot define it as: killing one is not as bad as killing 2-because you have killed, yes you killed more than one person but does that make you a worse person? If you give the one who killed one person he would kill another ( if not changed ) thus they punishment should be the death penalty for both. Thus if we kill people for killing others than we are too murderers. Conclusions: Killing is killing and cannot if defined, if the person kills he has killed but why did he/she kill? Why not look upon these reasons? And we can bring change upon them, rather than kill them. As well as-bringing the death penalty upon them would cause us to be murders. Links: http://www.google.ca... This link provides thought from people who would have their sister raped-as you can see they would be violent, now imagine if someone murdered their sister and how violent they would be then. http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk... This link talks about killing in self-defence and how it would be hard to prove to the court you had done so as a method of self-defense. http://www.youtube.com... This link provides information that even terrorists can become caring individuals. http://www.cbc.ca... This link provides an insight on the wrongly convicted in Canada for crimes-such as murder.