"Now im going to touch base on something we call Capital Punishment"

At the dawn of the 21st century, the death penalty is considered by most civilized nations as a cruel and inhuman punishment. It has been abolished de jure or de facto by 106 nations, 30 countries have abolished it since 1990. However, the death penalty continues to be commonly applied in other nations. China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the United States and Iran are the most prolific executioners in the world. While international documents have restricted and in some cases even banned the death penalty, its application is still not against customary international law. Much debate continues in the US as to whether it constitutes an appropriate punishment, at least to the most heinous crimes. In recent years, the debate has been further fueled by the use of new technologies which have shown that a large proportion of people sentenced to death are, indeed, innocent.

Any man who murders another man, has declared that he does not accept the principle of individual rights. He is worse then an animal, as he has chosen to abdicate his reason, in order to act like an animal. He has adopted the code of the jungle, and must be dealt with like the animals in the jungle. He can make no claim to the principle of rights for protection. He deserves death. It is not primarily to discourage murder. Whether the death penalty prevents crime, or not, is irrelevant, or at best secondary. The issue is not one of prevention, but one of justice. The impulse for revenge is potent and natural. The death penalty is not used enough. The simple fact remains that there are way too many murders a year. I believe the murder rate can and will be lowered if the death penalty was a real threat for these criminals. Many say that the death penalty will not make a difference and point to states where the crime rate stayed the same after the death penalty was re-instated.

My response to this is that it was not used enough. Too many times criminals sit on death row for years wasting away, waiting to die. What type of life is that? Why not put these people out of their misery and save the tax payers money? In Texas it costs only 86 dollars for the state to kill someone, but over 30,000 dollars a year to keep them alive. If this person has been found guilty and sentenced to death, then why are we, the taxpayers, paying to keep them alive? It doesn't make sense. The Federal government and the individual states need to use the death penalty more often and more efficiently.

I'm so tired of hearing this argument. Putting some criminals to death does prevent "people" from committing murder. Don't beleive me? Go read some statistics about the number of murders that happen inside prisons. I can guarantee that after we put McVeigh to death he will never kill another person. If we leave him in prison, can you make the same gurantee? Or maybe we aren't concerned about one prisoner killing another? For some survivors, the execution of a killer does quench the rage. More often than not, families of murder victims do not experience the relief they expected to feel at the execution. Of course, survivors are not the only ones seeking vengeance. Nor are the survivors the only ones seeking peace of mind. In a way, so is the rest of the country. While death penalty foes are quick to point out that the United States is one of the few Western countries with capital punishment, it is also true that Americans are more likely to experience violent crime than citizens of other countries.

The death penalty is not some huge social engineering program designed to keep everyone from killing everyone else. It is an extreme penalty for an extreme crime designed to keep that one person from ever violating anyone elses civil rights. Thats all it needs to accomplish to be successful. If it has any other collateral effects, such as keeping others from committing murder, thats a bonus. The fact that it doesn't measurable enact that result, does not make the death penalty a failure.