Firstly I'd like to point out the style of both of our arguments. I'm telling you my opinion, and explaining why I have that opinion. Where as you are stating your opinion to be fact, while also telling me (falsely) what my opinion is.

I'll just let other people post their opinions now, instead of taking up a lot of space pointlessly restating my opinion because you fail to accept it.

I accept your opinion and am not telling you what your opinion is. I am commenting on yours or questioning its correctness, if you will. In an attempt to make you understand something that in my opinion you dont. That is how debates or arguments are.

And yes, I am opinionated unless convinced otherwise. And I believe it to be right. Not fact.

Think about how much it costs to keep people in jail for life. Our economy isn't exactly the best. The less people the better. Why make the murderers suffer when you can just inject them and have them die painlessly.

So your proposal to improve the economy is to kill a few people in Jail? Why dont you do something else, kill all those people that live on welfare? They dont have jobs, arent productive, killing them will actually lessen the burden on the state Thats just ridiculous.

If your solution to end "suffering" is to kill, then you'd be killing anyone with any kind of pain be it physical or emotional. They dont suffer in there, they just stay in there without being able to do whatever they wanted to do in life while watching time go by. Because they killed someone.

it actually costs very little to hold someone. to actually kill someone with all the glory of a proper developed nation execution costs hundreds of thousands of dollars

we are talking 50+ trials taking up court time due to appeals, sanctions, repeats, lengthy trials, etc.

court appointed lawyers, judges and jury all get paid through the taxpayer.

and the appeals process is HUGE. appeal due to insanity, due to health, due to new evidence, etc.


there is gross GROSS GROOSSSS conflict of interest in texas where high court judges put out facts like the number of people they have killed like a badge of honour and the system there approves and supports them for it.
not to mention that although all evidence points to a certain individual being innocent, the jury verdict overules the fact that DNA evidence and the fact he was in jail at the time of the supposed murder means something is horribly wrong with that system in texas.

and finally, no, streamlining the process is not a viable solution, the last thing we need is for it to be easier for the state to legally kill someone.

money wise? its cheaper to keep them in a prison.

60-75 years of providing for someone is cheaper then a 100cc solution you make? I doubt it.... Plus, whats the point of keeping someone in prison until they die?

60-75 years? Not everyone lives that long.

Secondly, prison is a place where criminals live seperated from society. Its not a place where you kill people. Its a place where people that killed other people live. Thats its purpose.

Also, you didnt really get what Ducky said about cost. He was talking about repeated re trials, appeals etc.,

The govt should not be able to take a life of a citizen. That is my philosophy.

In MY personal opinion, no human has the right to take the life of another human, unless their life is under serious threat. I also do not think that it is mentally healthy or ethically correct, therefore I don't think that there should be a death penalty and I support those governments who decided against it implementing it into their law system.

I do understand and respect other people's opinions, but I simply don't think that it's ethically correct.

Well, I was told the death penalty is only used in severe cases of unprovoked murder. Personally, I feel like those broken individuals who kill for no reason should just be put to rest.

However, there are certain individuals who may be provoked emotionally or physically. Like, a 15-yr old high school boy who snaps and puts a sharpened plastic spoon through a bully's throat or a young woman exacting revenge on a rapist who caused her permanent trauma.

Overall, in most cases - there's some kind of underlying stipulation that results in homicide. Unprovoked killings = Death Penalty. It's also an economic issue, which was brought up previously. I'd rather not pay more tax money to house and feed a guy who decided to shoot up a liquor store to gain entrance into a gang.

As an added note, I would actually grant the death penalty as mercy to the individual and to save state upkeep costs. Charles Ponzi, for example... he was sentenced to something like 200 years in a max security cell. Max security is crap where the prisoner gets like 1 hour of time outside of the cell per day. Other than that, they just sit in a box all day. He may have been a complete slimebag scamming millions upon millions from people. I just think it's really screwed up to keep him in a box... let him rest.