Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Laws can be, and in many cases are, wrong.you have proven my point for meNo, not making more laws. Replacing the flawed one's with new and corrected ones, and perhaps add more detail to them.this is the point that you seem not to be able to grasp either through your inability or my inability to convey my point. we all live on planet earth no matter what country, i unfortunately am only familiar with the way the law works in the u.s. and not other countries. the process of determining what is "correct" is up to the legislators who hopefully make laws in accordance with the will of the people. unfortunately the will of the people changes drastically over time, so the laws that are in place must be able to stand that test of time, and putting someone to death is punishment that should have stopped long ago.The further it goes the more mistakes are made, the more we learn from them, and eventually we should get to a point where the coming mistakes are foreseen and predicted with precision and thus prevented.again you have proven my point that mistakes are inevitable, having learned this we need to have a system that guarantees protection from those mistakes, such as not being put to death.Taking someone's life in the name of a state is idiotic. A life may be taken if it is detrimental to others (assuming the others are toward "good"), and in some rare cases to humanity as a whole.im not sure what your point is here. i agree taking of life in the name of the state is idiotic. but that is what the death penalty is. who convicts them to death? the state. who determines the method? the state. and who carries out the sentence? the state. there is no denying this fact. again your argument floats back to "detrimental to others" and "for the good of humanity" since we have to rely on our justice system to determine this and i have already made the case for human error, there is no basis to this arugment. every persons view on what is detrimental or good for humanity is different, so you cannot base an argument for putting someone to death based on this.It has both vengeance and punishment in its meaning. Seems more like a mix of both.this is a semantic argument over the meaning of retribution, i am trying not to argue the religious view only the basic humanistic view, my opinion, and my understanding of law.It is a waste of resources if they don't compensate for the resources used on them.this is very untrue, by using this same logic you would let the needy starve, or freeze to death because they could not afford food or housing. these people, while having committed crimes, are still people. again the punishment is imprisonment, the punishment is not anything on top of that.It is, if the person put to slavery has done nothing to deserve it. In case of murderers this is not the case. They may not be kept in freedom, and keeping them simply locked up when they don't compensate for it is a waste of resources. Resources that largely come from taxes, taxes from the people who suffered in the hands of the criminals. Thus death, or slavery. They chose to kill someone, thus choosing a path for themselves.again you are basing your argument on what you personally feel regarding who "deserves" it. no one deserves to be in the chains of slavery. you seem to have the attitude that anyone who commits a crime has done so out of some inherent evil inside them. while this may be true in a few cases there are also accidents and crimes committed out of necessity (not that it makes it right, but just different from the "evil" view) your view of using tax dollars is also skewed, you assume that the criminal has never paid any sort of taxes....ever. i can safely assume that the criminal has paid taxes and that the funds being used to incarcerate that person largely could be paid from that. after all they may not have wanted any of their tax money used to fix roads that you or i may drive on, see how this argument fails fast?In some cases. When that person had a rough childhood and has had a bad influence, for example, and can see it and correct oneself.thank youBoth cases clearly depict that the government system is very flawed...........I agree with you 100%, our government in the u.s. is completely flawed and i also agree that they should adopt the more humanistic/socialist attitude of ensuring that we all have the essentials for living. your point about military spending is also very very poignant, with the money we spend on war / global control we could easily support and educate citizens to the point that perhaps this argument would for the most part be invalid, because more education equals less crime.US is not a smart country. It might have been once but is no longer.i agree