People on death row are sometimes proven not guilty.

People who have been murdered by our government are sometimes proven not guilty.

The cost of housing a single inmate is far from the “millions or billions” of dollars per person that you suggest. The cost of execution, as well, is far from free. The example you used was a man killed in a police chase — this is different. This is not the death penalty. The ability of a police officer to have an use a gun has virtually nothing to do with the death penalty. This man did not go through the legal system the way Lisa is referencing.

Virginia spent about $25k/prisoner in 2008. On the other hand, according the the NY Times, North Carolina pays $2.7 million per execution. California pays an estimated $250 million per execution. Here’s a link you may want to look at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28mon3.html

I for one wholeheartedly agree with the death penalty. A while ago, a guy here in Seattle shot four police officers. In a chase, he was shot by policemen. This spared him what would surely be a lifetime without parole in jail and millions or billions of dollars spent by the government to keep him alive. To prove my point, the culprit of the Halloween shooting (also of a police officer) has spent at least some time in jail and wasted so much of our money. Keeping someone in jail means feeding them and supplying them with necessities; they also have a risk of dying other ways. Some people will argue that if the culprit is mentally ill, they should be kept in an asylum and learn to “correct their ways”. However, if Lisa’s statistics are correct, there’s no proved reason that that theory is plausible. This is where morals come into play, and where there is no definite black or white area. But if someone is mentally ill and commits a crime to the degree of murder, is it their fault or the illness’ fault? More importantly, can you separate the two? Even if it is the illness to blame, the culprit is saddled with that illness for life — you can’t just excuse him, put him into an asylum and hope that he’ll turn out for the better.

It’s all very well as a bystander to lament the death penalty and to grant these people second chances, but put yourself in the shoes of the victim’s loved ones. If my father was killed, I don’t think I would feel justified if the culprit was simply put in jail, using my (future) tax money to support himself.

Another thing I find should be fixed is the lenience of policies here in the United States. In other countries, some acts have very severe punishments: in Malaysia, possession of a certain amount of marijuana means death. In China, intentional homicide means the death penalty. This significantly reduces crime, at least crimes of that nature. If the punishment isn’t severe enough, people won’t learn their lesson.

However, you’re really oversimplifying the issue, as a white kid with (I’m assuming) rich parents is wont to do. The death penalty is barbaric and expensive, and the way our legal system handles it favors the wealthy. Ever seen a rich guy on death row? No? Well, that’s because he can afford high-priced lawyers, and appeal after appeal.

The way you see it, if someone takes another person’s chance at life, they should have theirs taken, too. Well, Reagan bombed Libya, taking the chances of countless innocent people. Should he have had his chance taken? Clinton bombed Afghanistan. How about him? I’m getting off-track here, but my point is, murder is wrong, regardless of circumstance.

And then there’s the “eye for an eye” argument. Two things wrong with that: the first is Biblical. Matthew 5:38–9 reads, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.” There you go, Jesus disagrees with you. The second is the fact that we live in America, where “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” according to the First Amendment. Since that’s the first thing the Founding Fathers put in the Bill of Rights, I’m thinkin’ it’s pretty important. So, bottom-line, if you’re going to support the death penalty based on an Old Testament lesson, you’re violating laws in the New Testament and in the Constitution.

I agree, though, that our country is falling through the cracks. But if/when America collapses, I’m willing to bet that it won’t be because we *stopped* killing people.