Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

"Yes, it is, and I have clearly shown that...with links to prove it even."- it is true that you have given me sources, but it is also true that you have misinterpreted those sources."Riiiight, the past doesn't matter...sure, sure..."- in speculating the future advancements of DNA technology it doesn't matter."Who's arguing against technology here?? YOU ARE! You refuse to acknowledge that DNA evidence has freed people from death row, which it clearly has!"- why would anyone argue against the death penalty on the basis of DNA technology, if it can only become more advanced? When the point that someone on death row was saved by DNA is brought up, it shows that system works because it has saved their life."Nonsense, the issue of people being put to death for crimes that they likely NEVER committed is only one issue with the death penalty."- so you are saying that most people put on death row are likely to never have committed the crime they are being convicted for? Considering all the appeals processes that they have to go through, the evidence against them, and the fact that people are trying to execute them, I would say that its highly unlikely that they didn't commit the crime of which they were accused."The death penalty is cruel & unusual punishment, and it has been (and will continue to be) applied unfairly to different racial & ethnic groups."- There are many interpretations of the phrase “cruel and unusual” and many perspectives that contest its proper usage. For example, someone could suggest that life without parole is cruel and unusual to the prisoner because it keeps them in a cell for the rest of their life. Others might explain that it’s cruel and unusual to the victim to keep the murderer alive. These arguments are only opinions, though, and cannot be taken in reference with the Constitution. Arguments that support the death penalty are the only ones that can reference the Constitution.Constitutionally, execution does not violate the “cruel and unusual” clause in the Bill of Rights. First, the Bill of Rights was written by people who supported the death penalty, therefore it cannot be contradictory to the views of those who are in favor of imposing capital punishment. Second, while there are many different interpretations of the phrase “cruel and unusual”, the only one that can be used in reference with the Constitution is the perspective that supports the death penalty. An individual cannot explain that it is unconstitutional to execute someone since the framers of the Constitution believed that execution was not cruel. If the founding fathers did believe that capital punishment was wrong, then it would have been outlawed the day the United States was established.It’s important to note that, for most people, execution is gruesome and the thought of killing someone is not appealing. What also has to be taken into account, however, is that most of the executed have taken more away from society than what the government can take from them. According to Pro-Death Penalty.com, “The 518 killers who were executed between 1998 and 2003 had murdered at least 1111 people. That is an average of 2.14 victims per executed killer.” Considering this information, I think that it is accurate to say that it’s cruel and unusual to society and the victim’s family if we keep these people alive, and thereby give them a chance to kill again."It's just a matter of time before the USA joins the rest of the civilized world & bans the death penalty for good."- then why are you wasting your time arguing about it if your sure that it will be banned?"Really?? Well, they also allowed slavery to exist, and they denied Native Americans, women, and people that didn't own property the right to vote."- none of that was in the Constitution."...or been executed, period."- what?