First off, Bob and Mary shouldn't have part of their tax money go to pay for the person who killed their kid to eat, read, work out, and have a roof over their head.

Secondly, if you murder someone that isn't out of self defense you obviously have no respect for human life.

And thirdly, yes we should resect life but you have to punish people for the crime they have commited,and if their is video, eye witness, or DNA that proves someone is quilty for murdering someone than yes they should face the death penalty. Also murdering someone is a little more than a "very bad thing".

I think that if you kill intentioanaly in cold blood, then you yourself should die.

But to put someone to death would cost more of their (and your and my) taxpayer dollars, since it costs more to go through the legal process and procedure of the death penalty than it would for life imprisonment.  As I said above, the perpetrator should be made to work hard to make what restitution he can to the victim(s) and family of the victim(s).  I also would agree with your inference that prisons are too soft for violent offenders.

 If one who took the wrong guy, he just simply paid for it with his own life. That's equal.

I strongly support the adoption of death penalty.

There's so many things wrong with what you just said, I am not sure how I would say it. Basically, are  you suggesting we execute the jury/judge if they sentenced the wrong guy to death sentence!?

As for me, I am against death penalty, for pretty much all reasons listed above. As well as a few other reasons I'll divulge when I have more time. 

People don't kill others just because they don't respect human life. Sometimes it's because they feel they have to, or they have some kind of mental disease. Ever watched Tyler Perry's "Daddy's Little Girls"? The main Character's ex-wife and his ex-wife's boyfriend got the rights to his children and the boyfriend beat the kids. So when the man heard of it he got angry and attacked the boyfriend. Now if the Man killed the boyfriend would that mean that he has no respect for human life? Because he obviously wasn't attacking the boyfriend in self defense.

And like i said before, we have no right to go around mudering muderers, we're more sophisticated than that (or we should be). And you have to understand the fact that men aren't immutable, people do and can change.

EDIT: There is a difference between Justice and Revenge.

 I hope that you are joking. There is so much more you can do like working camps etc, death penelty is a easy way out.

Althugh I don't think it's been brought up in this debate, it has in debates I have had in school, and the point that seems to come up for the 'for' side is 'deterrent'.

Let me start off by saying 'deterrents' don't usually work, especially the deterrent of death. Smoking for example - almost everyone who smokes knows the possible consequences of what they are doing, yet they still do it. Drink-drivers no that they are putting themselves, and other people in grave danger by getting behind the wheel -yet we still have several drink-drive accidents a day (and by several, I mean quite a few). The same applies to doing drugs, speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, etc.

There are two types of murder - pre-meditated and opportunistic. In the case of pre-mediatated the peole generally believe that they're not going to get caught, and with opportunistic the criminal doesn't think about the future or consequences.

It's also important to note that countries that have the death penalty (US, for example) have higher crime rates (number and percentage wise) than other countries, such as the UK.

Here's what bugs me about the whole "prison is a waste of taxpayers money" argument: When inmates are on death row, they might BE on death row for 25 years, its not like they die a couple months after commiting the crime, guys. Probably the fastest execution in the past 50 years was Timothy McVeigh (OK City bomber), and that was mostly because it was a federal court, and he attacked a federal building (And the attorney general did not like him). It still took something like 7 years for him to be killed.

Check this page out: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm

You will see that, while half of the offenders got put on death row AFTER 1997, half of them were put there before 1997, with some dating back to 1976 (which means he has been on death row 31 years). According to this TX website, the average time spent on death row is 10.2 years. (Then you gotta add the additional prison time, during the trials, for the true cost of death row).

So, just because they are on death row, doesnt mean the state is really saving alot of money. (I live in TX by the way).

I remember reading once that it takes like $1mil to kill somebody. Primarily because of all the various appeals. You gotta remember the first time they go in court doesn't decide the fate, they can easily appeal against the decision time and time again. Si I think life inprisonment acually becomes cheaper.