life in prison is certainly enough reason not to kill.

"A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide.  Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.  

Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”

The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology.  Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research."

This is only further compounded by the fact that the justice system doesn't always get it right.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-wrongly-convicted-rabbis-murder-released-23-years/story?id=18784699#.UXn5EcrkxMQ

"The last time David Ranta walked free, the Berlin Wall had just fallen and Nelson Mandela had just been released from prison.

Now, 23 years later, the 58-year-old who was wrongfully convicted of murdering a New York City rabbi heard his handcuffs clink for the last time. He walked out of State Supreme Court in Brooklyn after Judge Miriam Cyrulnik vacated his conviction.

"It's clear that the effects of this case have been devastating," Cyrulnik said. "To say I'm sorry for what you have endured would be an understatement."

Ranta's relatives applauded in court and wailed audibly when the judge told him, "Sir you are free to go."

He walked from a cuffed position at defense table into tearful embrace of his family. When he emerged from court he was carrying a mesh laundry bag filled with his only possessions.

"For now I'll just say thank you all for your support," Ranta said.

Ranta was convicted of killing a rabbi in a 1990 botched robbery attempt of a diamond courier. The recently created Conviction Integrity Unit of the Brooklyn District Attorney's office determined after a year-long investigation that witnesses were coached and police mishandled evidence.

"There was new evidence which was developed which caused us to believe that the foundation of the case has been so degraded that we can no longer be confident that a jury would render a verdict of guilty," said Assistant District Attorney John O'Mara.

Ranta had proclaimed his innocence from the start. Investigators determined that detectives falsely claimed they took statements from Ranta and an eyewitness was instructed to pick Ranta from a police line-up.

"This was a travesty of justice from the beginning," defense attorney P. O. Sussman said.

Until today Ranta had been locked for nearly 23 years in a 6-by-9 foot cell near Buffalo. He began serving the sentence when his daughter was 2 years old. Today his daughter is six months pregnant with his grandchild.

"As I said from the beginning I had nothing to do with this case," Ranta said before he walked briskly outdoors toward freedom."

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Cameron_Todd_Willingham_Wrongfully_Convicted_and_Executed_in_Texas.php

http://amarillo.com/news/texas-news/2012-05-15/wrong-man-was-executed-texas-probe-says

it does. it provides the ability of people to fill those gaps. such as nuns, and monks, and others who volunteer their time. nothing in capitalism stops you from being a christian. nothing prevents you from helping others to get food, shelter, and health. Capitalism is not a being that has feelings or prevents people from doing things. its a way to transfer goods, services, and ownership. capitalism doesnt teach anything. maybe thats the issue here.

Individuals who end up saying stuff like, "The best way to help the poor is to promote free markets" and end up talking about how you just let everyone do what they want, will turn a blind eye to those in need.  Such individuals will end up either denying there is real human suffering, or end up saying the people suffering refuse to take personal responsibility for themselves, thos 47% freeloaders.

Capitalism can, if combined with charity, but when it isn't, then it is what prayformojo wrote about.

Jesus expects the Church to do things.  It also holds individuals accountable.  And also, there is what you touched on, by turning a blind eye, doing what one wants and not putting themselves in a place to see.  The system, in a free market, is the people.  If the people don't respond, then the system doesn't work.  There is no magic anything, just people who do things.  If there are poor starving to death, and dying of preventable diseases, ask yourself why and ask what you have failed to do.  

Think of the song "Man in the Mirror" here:

What would it be like if like everyone tithed and it went to help those in need who are worse off than they are?

Jesus is supposed to be Lord, and this isn't "Oh golly gee, if you feel good about it, and it is right and you freely give, that is good".  It is supposed to be do it.  If you want to be hardcore on this point and go with what Jesus really said, he said, "That which you do to the least of these, you do to me", and then people in final judgement were judged by how they treated the disadvantaged.  It is a matter of doing it, period, not some sort of get joy for yourself, but do it.  It is a matter of producing real results.  What I get sadden by in these discussions is out will come this trope centered around the virtue of the people who give and who gives more than who actually helps.  

Jesus wants the poor taken care of, period.  And one can then go and say, "Taxes and welfare are EVIL because they are not VOLUNTARY", but then same individuals fail to show how those who have these services taken away won't suffer.  Yes there is "He who doesn't work doesn't eat" but there is also a TON more on making sure the poor are taken care of.

And the heart of this, if it really doesn't matter to you, you can make a ton of excuses on this matter, and end up rationalizing how those in need aren't help, and then just chalk it up to how things are.  

again please show me verses or evidence where jesus wanted to force people to do things. Its been a long time since i read the bible, but i do not recall a single moment where jesus forced others to do his biding. He worked off teaching others how to treat others. But not off of force. Had he wanted to force us to help others dont you think he would have intead of creating a religion of teaching, he would of raised an army and created a governemtnthat that would take care of every single person and all their needs. Seeing as that is not what he did, i think he wanted us to choose the right path. I am also open to evidence that Capitalism prevents people from obtaining food, shelter, or health. 

What lays at the heart of your argument about "Jesus didn't force people to do things", is an elevation of people's said "free will" above about everything else out there.  In that, NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IS ONE SUPPOSED TO END UP MAKING PEOPLE DO ANYTHING.  This would end up going against the likes of parential compelling their kids to do things, and also repeatedly commands for people to submit to authorities.  You see in the New Testament textss where submission, and putting one's will aside because others who have authority over you, to do it.  It is NOT about this elevating non-compulsion above most other values, but people should bend their wills to be cheerful givers.  

This whole no compulsion goes out of the window when you see a verse like this:

Luke 14:23 - "And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled."

So, ultimately, one's will is supposed to bend to that of God, and be cheerful about it.  One is supposed to obey cheerfully the laws and compulsions set down.  Slaves are supposed to obey their masters and what not.  People are supposed to obey those in authority as if unto God.   Christianity is some sort of Libertarian utopia where everyone does things to their own devices, and people suffer consequences for their own choices.  Such a thing is not love at all.  And love is what Christianity is about.  Heck, you even see in Acts, where a couple that ended up not giving up all they had in a sale, and then saying they did, having God strike them dead: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananias_and_Sapphira

And you MUST go beyond just what Jesus said alone, and pull in other texts, preferably using the whole New Testament at least, because Jesus spoke to specific audiences, and in a pre-New Covanent time period that is after his death, burial and resurrection.  So you look to Acts and also Paul's writings to see things.

And on this, let's go even what Jesus is said here.  There are people who politically argue that individuals shouldn't pay taxes, because they are based on compulsion, and thus EVIL.  Well, Jesus says render to Caesar that which is Caesar.  Jesus doesn't say for people ot do tax revolts, and unless one wants to be anarchist and say Caesar has nothing (then why use the currency of the said entity you say has nothing?), then Caesar has something, and thus needs to be compensated.

Actually, if you want me to make a stronger case here, you have Romans 13 that says God is the one who put governments in place, and implies that disobedience to governing authorities is the same as rebelling against God:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13%3A1-14&version=NIV

So, what if the government looks over and sees poverty and decides it needs to deal with this poverty issue by the means of taxes and welfare?  If you can clearly show that helping the poor is commanded by Jesus, and the government decides to do things to help the said poor with taxes, which is what Jesus has commanded, then how exactly does one then argue that the government doing what Jesus said, and seeing it is done, then how does one argue the government is not something one is to submit to, if you care about what Jesus cares about?

You can see a scriptural study in this here:

http://erlc.com/article/biblical-directives-for-combating-hunger-and-poverty/

Edit: And another article on this subject:

http://www.defshepherd.com/2011/08/jesus-anti-welfare-randian-capitalist.html