Why does the death penalty exist?

I think it is a barbaric law in those states in which it exists. It has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with revenge. I believe in life in prison without parole. Rehabilitate? I don't think we should be spending rehabilitation dollars on the people who do get the death sentence or life in prison without parole. What would be the point?

Because in the U.S. it has become a political issue, and somehow conservatives have convinced the majority of sheeple that if you are against the death penalty you are "pro-criminal."

I was one of them. I supported capital punishment for a long time, but the more I learned about it, the more I came to oppose it. In the end, several factors changed my mind:

- Mistakes happen. Since 1973 in the U.S., 138 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. These are ALL people who had been found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." A life sentence is reversible. An execution is not.

- Cost - because of the legal apparatus designed to minimize wrongful executions (and the enormous expense of death row incarceration), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.

- It is not a deterrent - violent crime rates are consistently HIGHER in death penalty jurisdictions.

- It is inconsistently and arbitrarily applied.

- Because the U.S. is one of the last remaining nations with capital punishment, many other countries refuse to extradite known criminals who should be standing trial here.

- It fosters a culture of violence by asserting that killing is an acceptable solution to a problem.

- Jesus was against it (see Matthew 5:7 & 5:38-39, James 4:12, Romans 12:17-21, John 8:7, and James 1:20).

- Life without parole (LWOP) is on the books in most states now (all except Alaska), and it means what it says. People who get this sentence are taken off the streets. For good.

- As Voltaire once wrote, "let the punishments of criminals be useful. A hanged man is good for nothing; a man condemned to public works still serves the country, and is a living lesson."

- Whether you’re a hardened criminal or a government representing the people, killing an unarmed human being is wrong. Period. “He did it first” is not a valid excuse.

because people like Ted Bundy, Richard Ramírez, and Charles Starkweather earn it.

when you commit crimes like murder you lose certain rights. should a murderer in prison still have the right to own a fire arm?

its not murder either. its about justice, and balancing unbalanced scales. Murder has personal, or emotional motives behind it where as justice with due process does not.

EDIT- being a well regulated militia has nothing to do with the right to own a gun. but if you don't like that example how about this one:

Liberty is also mentioned as an unalienable right. so by you logic confinement for murderers, and rapists is illegal. what about the pursuit of happiness?.........can't really do that while serving a prison term now can you?

also those right are mentioned in the deceleration of independence, not the constitution which is the law of the land. the constitution grants us the power to sentence criminals after DUE PROCESS.

lastly your rights end where mine begin. if you take my life in my state, in the US, and under military law you have waived your right to life.

It is realized fully well everything you state. But that said, rehabilitation is expensive, and the death penalty has a large scare factor, as well as adding a sense of finality for the families of the deceased. Also the death penalty isn't murder, they chose to commit the horrendous acts they committed and it was decided in hopefully fair court of law what their punishment should be.

very few people earn the death penalty as it is. people really need to realize there are consequences to there actions and think things through before committing a crime in such a fashion that the death penalty is an option. better yet, quite breaking the law.

TO KILL ROBOT CHICKENS