What if outside the U.S.? Then what? Different countries have different ideas. I'd say the U.S. is pre-tty nice to us so far, but I see a dark raincloud from a distance~

@silent.assassin: I do not really know about other countries' law systems, except for Vietnam, Canada, and Europe.

Well, I don't think knowing would make much of a difference here anyhow. We're talking about the U.S...so... Sorry for steering y'all off topic. D:

The life or death question is only part of the topic. the question is whether or not criminals should be put to death. Whether or not we can house them is part of making this desicion. And part of debating a topic is discussing and understanding all aspects of the main inquiry.

I do not support the Death penalty. We have no right to take someones life away, no matter what they did. If we did that wouldn't we be murderers too? Life in death would be better anyways. Than they can live with the guilt and pain of whatever crime the person committed.

I meant...
It is true people get out of jail earlier than their intended time. That is why keeping people in jail might not be the efficient way. =/ And i was adding why some people have to stay 600 years in prison because the judges know they will get out early and they don't deserve any moment of freedom. So that problem is solved . But i think jails should put prisoners to work...and not just make them sit around ^^;;; Do they do that here in the US?

Moon, I kind of agree with you and I kind of don't. I think you are right about the death penalty being the easy way out for criminals but, we the tax payers are also the ones who are supporting these people while they sit in jail all of their lives. The prisons are so over crowded and keeping more people there for life makes the situation worse. I think that maybe if we had laws like, I forget the country but, if you steal, you lose a hand,you kill you actually, die etc. it would deter people from committing these crimes and we wouldn't have to worry about it as much. People who have been sentenced to death sit on death row for years and most of the time they are never executed. That wouldn't completely stop the crimes but I would think that the rate of crime would be much lower.[/b]

The truth is, nobody deserves to die that badly no matter how many deaths they caused. They already died a thousand times anyways. For every person you kill, you take hope away one by one, and that's the ultimate punishment. Not having karma.

I don't like death penalty. First of all, it's not penalty, it's complete annihilation of the victim who won't be able to suffer the penalty, because frankly all sense perception ceases after death, for the brain doesn't read any stimuli anymore.

Besides, it shouldn't be used unless leaving the person alive would cause some major problems instead of minor discomfort. That because the person might be innocent and would receive this "penalty" with no good reason.

Life in jail keeps both, the harmful or the possibly innocent person in a safe place where they can't cause trouble. The only problem is, jail isn't what it used to be in the past, at least not in my country. It's more like a vacation nowadays.

I believe that forcing somebody to live the rest of their life out in jail is a better choice than putting them on death row and ultimately, executing them.
My main reason for this belief is that keeping somebody alive is far cheaper than killing them. This is because people on death row can go to court as many times as they want to prove themselves innocent, seeing as the alternative is death. Not only that, but caring for a death row inmate is much more costly than the average one too. Since they have to be constantly in solitary confinement and monitered much more than the average prisoner.
Another reason would be, because the whole idea of somebody executing somebody else can be extremely strenouse on on a person's mind. Which could be bad for them in the long run. The whole idea of knowing that they killed somebody could be very bad for a person.
Lastly, most developed countries have abolished all of their death penelty laws already. Therefore, we might as well too. In fact, more countries should get rid of their death penelty laws.

Depends on the case; if there's any chance at all that the 'guilty' could be innocent, then life in prison, since evidence could turn up that he or she is innocent. Otherwise, kill them, and stop wasting tax dollars.

I'm torn. On one hand you have the "your going to live and suffer for what you did as long as you can" but then you have the "you get a (relatively) free ride for the rest of your life" thing.

I guess it all depends on the case.

I would rather the death penalty then go a life in prison. A life sentence is 25 years, once you get out of jail it will be quite hard for you to get a job because you have a criminal record saying you murdered someone.

I think the death penalty should be allowed for whoever wants to do it. If they don't want to rot in jail for the rest of their lives but have already done something wrong, let them pay for the consequence with their life.

All in all the death penalty is good and bad, just how you look at it

I think the death penalty is acceptable under some circumstances. I don't think it's appropriate for like... drug dealers. But I don't think they should get life in prison either. Of course the really bad ones are different, but mainly because they're guilty of murder and all kinds of other stuff too.

I agree that life in prison is probably way worse than the death penalty. Personally if I ever had to face one or the other, I'd choose death.
So I suppose I think the death penalty is appropriate only for dangerous, never-to-be-rehabilitated types, and unforgivable horrible devoid of humanity types. And in the cases of the very very worst, I would derive more personal satisfaction from their extended suffering in prison.

Originally Posted by L. Lawliet

I feel if you were sent in to prison for murder, than the death penalty is acceptable. I know if I had someone close to me die by someone else's hand, I wouldn't want them to live and die peacefully in jail. Make the murderer suffer a slow and painful death. =/

But if you just had a simple offense not involving murder, the death penalty shouldn't even be considered.

I believe it's assumed that life in prison is not peaceful.

I don't know actual statistics, but, at least in maximum security prisons, with the worst of the worst criminals, rape, violence, theft and murder are pretty much a given. Like I said, I don't know the figures, so I could be wrong, but it seems that it may as well be counted as a factor in the prisoner's punishment.
"Life in prison" means not just that you go to prison and have you rights suspended or even denied by the government, but also that the rights you still do have are subject to the machinations of other prisoners. So, for instance, even if a prisoner is allowed to own property, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because it may as well be taken as a given that, if the officers are not able to stop them, other prisoners can, if they choose, steal said property, destroy it, or beat blackmail or otherwise manipulate the owner until they surrender it.
And since correctional officers are outnumbered and human, they don't catch everything, so yeah. I think living with the knowledge that I only have the limited rights I enjoy by the mercy of other people, who are by virtue of the fact that they are in prison, assumed to be merciless, is far worse than the prospect of death.

Also, I think it's assumed, and sometimes true, that the prisoner-for-life will have to live with the guilt and remorse of his/her crimes(s). And that could be a lot worse than death. I would much rather die than live with being a cold blooded murderer.

I don't think there's anything such as absoulte proof in the world and while we can never prove 100% that someone did something, we cann't kill them for it. Death is a pretty terminal punishment.

Other then that, I don't like the idea of sanctioned and unsanctioned killing. Who are we to decide which crimes are punished with death? Why don't we hang the hangman, the man he was sanctioned to kill might have had a wife and a kid who'll now grow up with their dad. How can we say it's ok for some to kill and not others. And presumably not everyone who kills will get the death penalty still, so how do we decide who's crime was extreme enough to warrant the death penalty? What about extenuating circumstances?

As much as i hate to say it we are by nature a violent race. Saying a person should live out their lives locked up for commiting a henous crime such as murder. is the "Apropriot" answer. Its been programed into us by society. yet we send troops over to iraq and have them shoot people down. and they come home they are heros not murderers. I beleive that if a murderer is in jail and is convicted for his crimes and without a doubt guilty. he should die. he is a menace to society and hes a drain on the tax payers money and resorcess. they dont just get locked up in a cell until they die of old age. they are being cared for. they probably get many of the things we take for granted and or have to pay for. good meals, tv, laundry service. they dont make an income, cant pay their own taxes. its like getting a free ride the rest of your life. and whos to say if they feel guilty for killing? some people have no moral left. there are probably crimanles out there that have been sentanced to the death penalty but are working the system for life in jail instead.

Well its dependent on the crime of course. I feel that society would do better to follow Alittle of Hamerabi's- eye for an eye, foot for a foot. Not all of it mind you but some things. I believe they should be put to death only if they have taken a life with malicious intent. Accedental does not count.

Originally Posted by Mimi Lara

Well its dependent on the crime of course. I feel that society would do better to follow Alittle of Hamerabi's- eye for an eye, foot for a foot. Not all of it mind you but some things. I believe they should be put to death only if they have taken a life with malicious intent. Accedental does not count.

Even then I don't think it's so clear cut. And who does the murder, becasue your executioner has just take a life and he deffinetley intended to. We have to remember that crimes are motivated, and sometimes the motivation can make them seem more justified.

Originally Posted by Yarrian

Even then I don't think it's so clear cut. And who does the murder, becasue your executioner has just take a life and he deffinetley intended to. We have to remember that crimes are motivated, and sometimes the motivation can make them seem more justified.

I was rather vague this morning surely out of the need to rush. I dont really believe that its so clear cut either but I do believe that murder and only some cases of murder are justified needs for giving someone the death penalty. Jail time is too leneant for people who take anothers life. In only a few rare cases are there excuses realy reliable in the first place.

If someone has taken the lives of others away... Well, I'd say if someone is capable of murder, then they may have something wrong mentally that they can't help. With treatment, therapy, and medication, they can turn out to be quite normal. So who's to say?

I watched a television program recently about a murder that occurred in the 1950s. A man hijacked the car of some teenagers, made them get naked and stay blindfolded while he raped one of the girls. Then he stole their car. The kids got help, and it ended with the criminal killing two police officers.

Years later--like, the present day--with our fingerprinting technology, the man was found. But was he some mass-murdering psychopath? No. He was living very happily with his family, retired and thinking he'd gotten away with his crimes. But he'd also become a very good person.

So I think time changes who we are. Most people that have the death penalty go YEARS and YEARS before it actually occurs, as they try to appeal the event and stuff. So in all that time they may truly become repentant, get the mental health care they likely need, and could become functioning members of society.

But who in their right mind would want them to be set free?! That's the problem. We'd always wonder and worry, and shun those people if we knew their history. And the families that suffered would want their vengeance/justice.

On the other hand, life in prison isn't all that bad, from what you see on TV. Sometimes it's awful, but some things don't seem terribly bad. People seem to have plenty of free time (what else have you got?), get healthy, get religion, take the opportunity to make pen pals and study... They have TVs and places to get exercise. But then you hear horror stories about police brutality, rape, etc...

...I guess it would vary by case!

Taking a life for a life is never fair. I do not believe in the death penalty. It's cruel.

:lol: This topic has come up alot. My point was and always has been against the death penalty. I believe in settling things in this life, killing someone o.O eh...that's kinda went beyond life. But i do believe death does not really satisfy as a punishment.

I think... the death penality is a total no no. Every life have it's value, even if the crime is very harsh, we are all humans, humans make mistakes. It's only natural. And what do you get for killing the criminal? The person that criminal killed won't be able to resurrect anyways. Why kill another life? I think life imprisonment would be a great way for them to think over their crimes, to atone for what they did wrong. They should not be able to die so easier after all. I'm just that evil :twisted:

i just wrote an essay on that question:

Wouldn't it be nice if you had more money, the world wasn't so crowded, and the murder rate was lower? All this could be accomplished if the death penalty was used more often. Many people are against the death penalty for various reasons. However, there are more compelling reasons why capital punishment should be used equally for every murderer in every state.

Consider the following hypothetical situation: A poor African American named Karl kills someone on his eighteenth birthday. He gets sentenced to life in prison. "Instead of lethal injection [he gets] a long stay at a Swedish-style prison with college classes, a salad bar and condom dispensers in every shower room" (Pollitt 11). He also gets free television entertainment and access to weights. During his first week of prison, he gets harassed a bit by the other inmates because he is new; but after awhile he adjusts, and the other inmates respect him because he is a murderer. He makes several friends in prison and even gets to take drugs. His life is now better than it ever was on the outside, when he had to work for all those things. Now he has it all for free. What could be better? Let's not forget that "life in prison" does not necessarily mean he is spending his life in prison; he has the chance for parole and could be free again one day. His victim however, is not so lucky, and has to spend his/her days in a cold grave with no chance of escape.

Why should criminals be rewarded with a better life? Prison is supposed to be punishment, but it isn't any punishment at all when prisoners get food, shelter, and entertainment all for free. The law-abiding free people have to pay tax dollars to accommodate them. How is this justice? A murderer takes away someone's life. It is only fair that his/her life should be taken away as well.

The question is how should murderers be given the death penalty? Lethal injection is expensive and painless. It is important that we not pay too much to punish criminals, since it is not our fault that they did the crime; it is their fault, and they should be the ones to suffer more than us. Therefore, another method of capital punishment should be used instead of lethal injection. There are many ways to kill someone cheaply. You can shoot them in the head for instance. However, this can be messy, and it is also painless. Hanging is quiet, clean, quick, easy, and cheap. But there is still the issue of the murderer not feeling any pain. Shouldn't s/he suffer for her/his crimes? Her/His victim most likely had a long and painful death, so why should the murderer get off easy with a quick and painless one? It would be best if the murderer was to die in the same way s/he killed her/his victim, but it is hard for authorities to duplicate that onto the murderer, because it is "cruel and unusual;" it would make the authority killing the murderer seem sadistic and a murderer her/himself. Fortunately, there is a method of going about the death penalty that is cheap, long, painful, and doesn't involve any torturing to be administered by authorities: Starvation. Once a person has been convicted of murder, they can be put in a cell to rot and starve to death. To save even more money, many or all of the murderers at one prison could be put in the same cell. No money will have to be spent for the murderer's food, entertainment, or anything else except the cell. This solution won't solve all our problems of spending tax dollars on criminals, since not all of them are murderers. But many of them are murderers, and this will decrease the money we have to spend to keep them alive and well. In the long run, killing every murderer in this way will make the world a better place; murder rates will decrease, and prisons and the world will be less populated. However, many people are against the death penalty, whether it be by starvation, lethal injection, or any other way.

The first argument that comes to mind is that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. Was it not cruel for the murderer to kill someone? There is nothing wrong with giving a cruel punishment to a murderer who committed a cruel crime. In Illinois on November 16th, 1995, 28-year-old Debra Evans was shot to death, along with her two children. She was also pregnant with a baby, which was cut from her womb. The two killers, Jacqueline Williams and Fedell Caffey, were originally sentenced to death, but the governor of Illinois changed their sentence to life in prison. Debra's father, Sam Evans, said:
For you and me it would be worse than the death penalty. For Caffey and Williams, this is the best life they've had--they have three square meals they don't pay for, they have cable, they have rec rooms, they can get drugs if they want, they can have sex if they want. What are they being denied except being able to walk on the street? (Jerome 91)

The governor insists that he isn't letting the convicts off easy, saying, "Life without parole has even, at times, been described by prosecutors as a fate worse than death" (Jerome 91). For some prisoners, they would rather die than live their entire life in prison, with no goals, purpose, or hope for getting out. For them, that is no life at all. That is why some prisoners attempt suicide or volunteer to be executed sooner than their execution date. "Of the last 12 criminals executed in Florida, eight were volunteers" (Thornburgh 44). However, even if it can be crueler to some to serve life in prison instead of being put to death, it costs the tax payers money to keep them alive. Since both life in prison and capital punishment can be considered cruel, it makes sense to choose the one that will benefit society the most-�the death penalty�-which will save us money and lower population. Plus if the message we give society is that all you get as punishment for murder is prison time, prison might serve as an incentive instead of a deterrent to poor people who can't afford to feed and shelter themselves.

The second reason why people are against the death penalty is because there is no proof that it deters crime. "Police chiefs and politicians say that the drop in violent crime, including murders, is the result of higher rates of conviction and incarceration, and sterner sentences" (Cruel and Usual 27). While it is true that the death penalty has not been proven to deter crime, it is also true that imprisonment doesn't deter crime either. "Most evidence shows that these two punishments are about equally (in)effective as deterrents to murder" (Bedau 179). However, the death penalty is rare; from the year when the death penalty was reinstated in 1977 to 2002, only 741 executions took place in the United States (Henslin 222). On average, there were about 30 people executed per year. Compare that to the thousands of prisoners in prison and the fact that almost every day you turn on the news, there is another person murdered. In 2000, there were 1,382,000 U.S. prisoners; 741 executions in 25 years is hardly any at all (Henslin 218). "As long as the death penalty continues to be used relatively rarely, there is no prospect of gaining more decisive evidence on the question" of whether or not it deters crime (Bedau 179). Maybe prison would be a better deterrent if the prisoners weren't given free food, shelter, and entertainment and actually had to pay for their stay. Obviously prison isn't anything to fear, since the prisoner murdered anyway, knowing full well the consequences behind his/her action. Since prison doesn't deter murder, what can you do to deter it? Death is the harshest punishment there is, and even if it still doesn't deter all people from committing crimes, it will at least deter some more than the threat of prison.

The third reason why people are against the death penalty is because some inmates reform in prison and become better people. An example is Stanley "Tookie" Williams who founded the Crips gang in 1971; he was sentenced to death for killing a 7-Eleven employee, a motel owner, and the owner's wife and daughter. In 1993, he "discovered his humanity" and began to teach kids not to join gangs (Should 'Tookie' Die? 3). He even wrote a series of children's books called Tookie Speaks Out Against Gang Violence. Williams's supporters say that he shouldn't be put to death because of how much good he has done. But if he really wants to show kids the consequences of joining gangs, he will go through with being put to death; if he got off easy, it would only show kids that they could get away with murder too. Some people say that the purpose of prison is not to punish but to rehabilitate criminals. However, not many prisoners become better people, and many commit the same crime when they are free again. Of 300,000 prisoners released from U.S. prisons, 41% of murderers were rearrested within three years; there are even higher percentages for other crimes, the highest being car theft at 79% (Henslin 221). Just because a prisoner is on good behavior doesn’t mean they have changed; they could just be pretending so they can get out of prison as soon as possible. Moreover, any reformation a prisoner goes through doesn't make up for the victim(s) s/he killed. Why should a murderer be given a second chance when her/his victim has no second chance? The issue of reformation wouldn't even be an issue if the death penalty was carried out immediately after sentencing as I suggested, since the murderers would die before they would have a chance to reform.

Let's revisit Karl's hypothetical situation. He murdered someone on his eighteenth birthday. His lawyer argues that Karl was technically not yet eighteen when he killed the person; he was still seventeen, and he would turn eighteen later in the evening. This raises the issue of whether juveniles should be sentenced to death. "The execution of children (those under 18 years old at the time of the crime) has been eliminated in all but five countries�-Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and the United States" (Hawkins 31). This fact makes it seem that the U.S. is horribly cruel to be on the same level as those other countries, since each one of them is known for committing human-rights violations (Farley 50). It is cruel enough to sentence an adult to the death penalty, but to sentence a child to it is even crueler.

Speaking of cruelty, here are two real accounts of juvenile murder: Early in the morning on September 9th, 1993, 17-year-old Christopher Simmons and a friend broke into a woman's mobile home to steal her valuables. When she awoke, they ordered her out of bed, bound her hands with duct tape, taped her eyes and mouth shut, forced her into the back of her minivan, drove her to a bridge, tied her hands and feet together with cable, covered all her face but her nose with duct tape, and kicked her over the edge to drown. Simmons was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. A decade later, he got what the woman "will never get�-another chance to live" (Should He Die? 1). The Missouri Supreme Court changed his sentence to life in prison without parole "because he was 17 at the time of the crime�-too young . . . to be held fully responsible for his actions" (Should He Die? 1).

Patricia Baeuerlen begged 16-year-old Levi Jackson not to kill her. He made her watch as he killed her baby, then he mutilated and killed her. As Patricia's sister Nancy Arias said, "The only cruel and unusual punishment in this case was the . . . brutal way that [Jackson] killed her" (Should He Die? 2). And as her lawyer Robert Macy said, "The killer should not be in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits, and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die" (Should He Die? 2).

People who don't want juveniles to be put to death say that the children under eighteen are too young to die and too young to know right from wrong. "As a society, we don't let adolescents consume alcohol, and we have different restrictions on them because we know they don't have the best judgment," said Dale Baich, a federal attorney who specializes in death-row cases. "I think we have to hold that view when we make them eligible for the death penalty" (Should He Die? 2). Kids drink alcohol anyway, for the same reasons that adults do�-for times when they are partying or depressed. If they do it for the same reasons, how are adults any more mature in doing so? Likewise, both people under eighteen and above kill people. Adults who kill are no more mature than kids who kill. It is still the same crime, and should be punished the same way. Killing someone has nothing to do with bad judgment; it isn't a mistake. Juveniles know what they are doing when they are killing someone, and they know the consequences (Farley 51). As soon as a child can talk and understand language, s/he knows right from wrong. If this wasn't so, you would see a bunch of toddlers running around committing crimes left and right. What would hold a kid back from killing her/his parents if s/he didn't want to go to bed or eat vegetables? Having bad judgment or not knowing right from wrong cannot be used as an excuse for why juveniles shouldn't be put to death for murdering someone. A ten year old killer is no different from a seventeen year old killer; a seventeen year old killer is no different from an eighteen, thirty, or forty year old killer. We are all taught that it is wrong to hurt people, yet some do it anyway. Just because it is someone under eighteen, doesn’t mean they shouldn't face the same penalty as an adult. If kids are allowed to get away with murder, they will just be more likely to engage in crime, knowing that they are guaranteed to not get the death penalty. "Gangs in California often use underage triggermen because the gangs know that, if the triggermen are caught, they will not be subject to capital punishment" (Farley 51). That would change if all murderers were given the death penalty regardless of their age.

Another big reason why people are against the death penalty is because there is the possibility that the murderer is innocent. "Nearly 60 people have been released from death row on grounds of their innocence" (Hawkins 31). While 60 people could be considered a lot, it really isn’t considering that there are hundreds of murderers on death row. There is always the possibility for mistake, but the reason we have a judge and jury is to determine the guilt or innocence of a person. If we can't trust their judgment, what is the point of having them at all? In order for a person to be convicted of murder, there has to be enough evidence. If there was such significant evidence that the person did in fact murder someone, then we must trust that it is true. Even if a death row inmate is later found innocent, it isn't like the person is really innocent. They may be innocent of the crime, but everyone has done bad things in their life; most people have done illegal things and were never punished. Just because a person may not be guilty of the crime they are on trial for, they are not completely a poor innocent soul. Maybe it was karma or fate that the person finally got punished for all the bad deeds s/he did and was never caught for. Regardless, it shouldn't be debated whether the murderer is innocent or guilty after s/he has been sentenced to death. After they are dead, it will be a moot point.

Often a judge's mistaken judgment comes from his/her personal biases against the murderer. "The overwhelming majority of persons on death row still come from poverty-stricken backgrounds�-more than 90% of them could not have hired a private attorney. And, more than half of the condemned still are members of racial and ethnic minorities" (Hawkins 31). 46.5% of U.S. state prison inmates are African American, 33.3% are white, 17% are Latino, and 3.2% are something besides those three (Henslin 219). However, the reason why so many African Americans are in prison is not necessarily because of racist judges, juries, or police. The reason is more likely to be because of the racism that is built into society. 30% of African Americans are poor, while only 10% of whites are poor; more African Americans are poor because racist job-owners won't hire them. They also tend to come from lower educated families and don't get far in education themselves, which leads to increased chances of landing in prison (Henslin 269, 275). Of all races, African Americans have the highest rates of dropping out of high school (31%), just graduating from high school (21%), and dropping out of college (11%) (Henslin 281). Their low education leads to poverty; 20% of all people who drop out of high school end up poor, and 20% of African Americans make less than $15,000 a year (Henslin 280, 347). Social class determines the life chances for African Americans, but racism in jobs accounts for the fact that they average less pay than whites for the same job (Henslin 347-348). The poor and least educated people are most likely to commit murder and other street crimes, thus most people in prison are African American. The majority of prisoners on death row (52%) have not finished high school, but the majority of people on death row (46%) are white whereas 43% are African American (Henslin 221-222). This proves further that racist judges and juries are not necessarily the reason why most people in prison are African American. If a lot of people sentenced to the death penalty happen to be African American, it is merely coincidence because most prisoners are African American.

The bottom line is that no matter what arguments people come up with to abolish the death penalty, it still comes down to this: Law-abiding tax payers shouldn't be paying to keep murderers alive and well; human and prison populations are too high and will only get higher. As I said before, there were 1,382,000 U.S. prisoners in 2000; that number is expected to grow to 1,700,000 in the year 2010 (Henslin 218).
Between 1970 and 2000, the U.S. population grew 38%, while the U.S. prison population grew 16 times as fast (605%). If the U.S. prison population had grown at the same rate as the U.S. population, there would be about 270,000 prisoners, one fifth of the actual number. (Or if the U.S. population had increased at the same rate as that of U.S. prisoners, the U.S. population would be 1,423,000,000�more than the population of China.) (Henslin 218)
Although the U.S. population only grew 38%, this is still a large increase. The world population in 2003 was 6.3 billion; it is expected to increase to 8.9 billion in the year 2050 (Cohen 1172). We already have too many people, and many of them are starving. Our natural resources are running out, and humans continue to pollute the Earth. These matters will only worsen with time as population increases. Unfortunately, none of the other countries besides China have a law to limit families to having one child. Our population will only get bigger as people have more and more children. What is also unfortunate is that the families that tend to have the most children are the poor families who can't support their kids; these kids grow up in poverty, don't get a good education, and thus have higher chances of going to prison (Cohen 1174). It would be ideal to just kill off all the people who don't have good life chances, but that isn't possible. Since murderers deserve to be punished with death, this is the perfect opportunity to decrease human population by killing them all.

If the death penalty was used more often and administered in practically free ways like hanging and starvation, the world would be a better place. Your taxes wouldn't be so high, because they wouldn't going to the food, shelter, and entertainment for all the murderers in prison. All murderers would be put to death immediately and very cheaply. This would lower murder rates, prison population, and world population. The death penalty is the perfect solution.