For those that argue "pro-capital punishment"?

The reason this is hard to do is that on the facts, it is easier to oppose the death penalty. You may want to rethink this project. Here are some facts about the death penalty system. Some may surprise you. All are supported by good sources (below.)

you don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid terrible punishments for terrible crimes to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime, to look at alternatives and to think about the risks of executing innocent people. Your question deserves facts with credible sources, not sound bites.

127 people on death rows released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters others. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t.

We have a good alternative, life without parole, on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty.

The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the upfront costs (before and during the initial trial) of legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members have testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people.

Sources:

Death Penalty Information Center at deathpenaltyinfo.org

for stats on executions, reports on costs, deterrence studies, links to FBI crime stats and links to testimony (at state legislatures) of victims' family members. This website also has a good resourse especially for students writing papers, with links to both sides. On the homepage, scroll all the way down to resources.

FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_04.html

The Innocence Project, www.innocenceproject.org

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcosttestimony.pd... page 3 and 4 on why the death penalty is so expensive

http://www.njadp.org/forms/signon-survivor.html for statements of victims’ families

Zero recidivism. This is the strongest arguement for death.

Other reasons are that the community deserves retribution, or revenge, imposed by society. This is necessary to maintain respect for the law.

That there is a deterrence effect, (although I beleive that studies show that is not a strong cause and effect).

Punishment serves, by the publicity, to educate the public as to the proper distinctions between good conduct and bad conduct. Certainly the penalty of those convicted and subjected to the death penalty educate the public that the type of crime they committed are not acceptable.

Use these points to support the death penalty. they are both simple and extremely powerful:

-it serves due justice (the punishment fits the crime), and serving due justice is the NO.1 job of a court of law (preventing crime is NOT their job)

-it shows that we are tough on crime

-it gets bang for the taxpayers buck

-criminals given the DP have a 0% recidivism rate

-It holds people responcible for the horrible content of their character. This fulfills what MLKJ always wanted: judge not by the color of your skin, but by the content of your character. The characterof these criminals warrants death

-It holds the criminal responcible for his actions

-appeals and **** aside, it's cheaper then prison

-it decreases the prison population, which saves even more taxpayers money

-Because the death penalty is the punishment given by a neutrel judge, there is no vengance in it. Therefore, there is no moral objection to be had with the death penalty.

-The death penalty defends human rights by establishing a mentality that "we will not tolerate any violation of any innocent person's human right's

First, the idea of corporations being "people" is two quite some issues, neither of that is perfect to the specious line of argument you provide. the first is the legal idea that has been in life for hundreds of years, in step with English common regulation, the position corporations had legal "personge" status so as that they could enter into contracts or delight in rights or search for redress in courts. the 2d is they are voluntary institutions of persons, and therefore waiting to learn from the freedoms, rights and protections that the different crew of voluntarily linked persons has. As for the declare he believes that authorities could prop up failing agencies, are you able to provide help for this declare? Which certain agencies has he supported authorities stepping up and helping? I hadn't heard of this and ought to favor to carry close more beneficial. Oh, and please use valid information web pages.

Some criminals deserve a fate worse than death, but death is the best we can do. After that, they have to answer to God.

Killing a murderer will bring the victim back to life.

Prove that and you will have a winning argument.

Lol, democrats...NO WAR, NO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT...no wonder they take it out on the babies