If its one thing the human race should have learned by now, is that "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," to quote Ghandi.

I don't think ManOfTrueTruth was saying the death penalty encourages violence. I don't think he said that at all. What he said is it teaches vengence; the United States is supposed to be a role model for freedom, democracy, and humanism. And yet its the only industrialized nation on Earth that continues to execute its prisoners. He's saying that the US is setting the wrong example of a brutal way of punishment that we're supposed to be opposed to in this "War against dictatorships". The fact that the US is the only major industrialized country to continue the death penalty certainly tells you about the level of standards of decency in society, which has been a determining factor in certain court cases that make exeptions in the death penaltly. Such as Atkins v. Virginia, which outlawed the execution of the mentally retarded, or Roper v. Simmons which outlawed the execution of minors under the age of 18.

I've been studying the death penalty rigurously for months now including stacks of case law, and I can tell you a lot about it; mainly because I am an attorney in a mock trial case which is a capital case. We're determining if people who suffer from paranoid schizophrenia should be safe from the death penalty. But no matter how much I tell you about it, understand one thing. The reason why the United States executes its prisoners, is for retribution and deterrence. Those are the two legal reasons why it is still carried out in the United States. Anything falling out of that realm, although might be important and deserves mention in court, has no weight in the courtroom and wouldn't be a determining factor in outlawing the death penalty if such were to be argued. And so far I haven't heard an arguement about either of these two legal justifications for the death penalty in this thread.

I'm telling you right now that I am an attorney for the prosecution in this mock trial case. Consequently, I have to argue for the state, and argue in support of executing paranoid schizophrenics. But I must urge that I am strongly against the execution of these types of individuals in real life, and strongly against the death penalty all together; despite having to argue for the contrary. I know the State's arguement for the death penalty like the back of my hand, and let me tell you, it is completely without merit. They will argue that killing our prisoners serves retribution, which is just a fancy word for revenge. They will also say that the death penalty serves deterrence, meaning criminals in the street suddenly decide not to kill someone because of the death penalty.

Studies have been done, which concluded that the death penalty does not serve as an effective form of deterrence. Not nearly as effective as the punishment of life without possibility of parole. Being locked up in a windowless concrete block for the rest of your life, surrounded by morons that will probably end up fighting or sometimes raping you, is much more of a deterrence than being put to death. The human mind is not designed for killing other humans, in fact it is against our nature to do so. The amount of anger and hatred it takes to murder another human being in cold blood far overshadows any thought of the death penalty in the back of the murderer's mind. Criminals don't stop and think about the consequences before they murder someone. Its just like all of the teen pregnancies you hear about. They're so grasped by their emotions, and their lust, that they don't stop and think "Jeeze, now that I think about what my DARE officer said, I don't think I want to have sex with you." It does not work like that. And with murder cases, doubly so.

And to parafraze Atkins v. Virginia, unless the imposition of the death penalty to our criminals measurably contributes to one or both of these goals, its 'merely a purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering, and hence an unconstitutional punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.' The evidence and studies are against the death penalty.

Another aspect which plays a decisive role in determining whether or not the death penalty is unconstitutional under the 8th Admendment, is whether or not the death penalty being 'pain and suffering' reaches a national consensus, and is true to the current evolving standards of decency. "The basic concept underlying the Admendment is nothing less than the dignity of man.. The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," (Atkins v. Virginia). And thus, it really is up to the humanity of the American people to determine exactly whether or not the death penalty should be legal. Its like what Lennon said, "War is over, if you want it". And we as the American people, and also the courts must look at the facts. The United States is the only industrialized nation on Earth that continues to carry out the death penalty. First we outlawed the execution of mentally retarded, then the execution of minors under 18, and what is next on the road in the evolving society? The execution of everyone.