Some interesting things:

- The use of death penalty doesn´t affect criminal rates (this is 100% the wrong word...)in a positive way. In fact, more crimes are commited in states which use death penalty than in states without it.

- the idea of not killing people in any situation comes from - Jeez Lawees! - the Bible!

- In an Interview Britney Spears gave us her opinion of death penalty: "I think it´s good so the murderers can learn for the next time."

Interpret this sentence in every way you want...

I am against it, hard to make someone came back to life if you took the wrong guy.

there are plent times were some sick fuck says and gloats that he killed many people, those type deserve death.  USa is just to willing to give the death penalty, plus the legal system is a joke.

 And iam sure as hell not paying taxes so some murderer that killed kids can live in confort in a prison.

Is some cases death is the only option.

 Charles Manson is still alive, why.

tough topic. i support it but not necessarily agree with how its used. personally if a person is 100% guilty, that means dna proof, whole bunch of evidence, and the person pleads guilty without remorse and really planned it (well, ofcourse it's planned, otherwise it's manslaughter, not first degree murder), then they well deserve the death penalty if the victim's family requests it. if there's slight doubt about the person's guilt, i would never approve of the death penalty and rather give life in prison until evidence proves guilt or innocence. at least, less likelihood to wrongly take the life of a truly innocent person.

 what if it's a murder who killed more than 1 person? =P

 I'm pretty much neutral about it but personally, I feel that there are punishments worse than death...

Apparently one of the big arguments against the death penalty is that sometimes the criminal could be innocent, and it would be wrong to kill an innocent.

That means you have a problem with the justice system, not the death penalty. When someone is convicted, they're GUILTY. They don't get the death penalty if they're innocent, according to the justice system.

Of course, innocents get wrongly convicted, I'm sure, but what can you do about that?

 Umm, maybe you aren't aware how much it costs to actually execute someone. A quick google lead me to this page: http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

 "From this; the cost of keeping a 25-year-old inmate for 50 years at present amounts to $805,000. Assuming 75 years as an average life span, the $805,000 figure would be the cost of life in prison. So roughly it's costing us $2 million more to execute someone than it would cost to keep them in jail for life. This is just the dollar cost, the externalities will be discussed in a moment."

 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108 Also has more:

• The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.
• The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).
• The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.
• The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.
• Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.

 So yes, while it is cheaper to execute someone compared to letting them rot in jail, the overall costs are much much higher.

Against the death penalty on several counts:

1. The possibility of a false conviction. The permanence and finality of the death penalty is what makes this punishment more susceptible to the point than other forms of punishment. No coming back from the death penalty. Sure, 20 years in prison is tough to come back from, too, but at least we can return them to society if they are later found to be innocent.

2. Moral ambiguity. I believe killing others is wrong. I don't believe there to be an exception when you really think someone is a bad guy/girl. The criminal is wrong, but that does not make us any more right in doing the same thing.

3. Lack of deterrent effect. Tons of countries without the death penalty post lower murder rates than us. States with no death penalty have no difference in murder rates over those with the death penalty. There just isn't evidence of a deterrent effect.

4. Not needed to protect society. With our maximum security prisons, life in prison without parole is more than sufficient to protect society from a killer. Society is made no safer by extending the penalty to death.

5. Unbalanced application. This one is enough on its own...even if I ignore all my other objections. In this country, you are way more likely to get convicted if you are, say, a poor black man in Texas. You can't afford the quality of defense, juries have demonstrated bias, Texas leans towards death, etc. In a world where we cannot guarantee a balanced application of a penalty, you really should not be using it. Like #1, I know this argument applies to all punishments, but it is more the case with the death penalty. Finality and seriousness of the penalty.

QFT.  I was going to mention #5 but was too lazy to go look for data, so I am glad someone did. 

I used to be completely pro-death penalty for all cases of rape and murder. Now I'm only pro-death penalty when the person involved cleary is a sick psycho with no chance to contribute anything meaningful to society.

I've been pretty down on the Criminal Justice system lately. Prison isn't suppost to be JUST a punishment, its supposed to be a place to send people who are DANGEROUS to society. They're supposed to protect us from people trying to hurt us. More an more, prison is just a "punishment", without the whole danger to society thing mixed in. Sell an M game to a minor in NY, you could go to prison. WHY? is the store clerk such a danger to society that he must be removed from it? Then WHY SEND HIM TO PRISON? We'd have a lot less overcrowding in prisons if we doled out probation and community service alot more.

Death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous of criminals with little or no chance to ever contribute to society. Death Penalty has its place.

This argument bugs me:

"Second, killing a murderer means you act on the same level he does, but you should try not to make his mistakes again."


No, No No NO, No, and No. Society (thats us) determine laws. Murder is a crime because we say it is. When a society determines that someone has committed so heinous a crime that the world would be better off if they didn't exist, that is careful and considered justice. Killing a store clerk so he won't be a witness to a robbery is not careful and considered justice, its murder. The death penalty is not murder. Its taking drastic steps for the good of society.

Which leads to the next point:

"This also goes for his relatives. They may strongly disagree with his action, but they still love him meaning you create new, unguilty victims by killing him."

Yes, but society as a whole benefits more than these people are hurt. That is something else that is (or should be) weighed when deciding the death penalty. Does the murderer have an immediate family? Does he have Children? What is his demeanor towards his family? Is he a decent father/husband, or a scum bag? Ultimately, it is the jury's decision to weigh these factors in a death penalty case, and if they deem that the pain and suffering of the murderers family is less than the benefit to society or appropriateness of the punishment relative to the crimes, then the Death Penalty should be used.