But there is evidence to support the idea that capitol punishment is no deterrent at all. Most killers do not think of the consequences. Us normal people do not kill out of fear of getting caught or out of moral grounds. The actual punishment is fairly irrelevant.
Canada has no death penalty and a lower rate of murder. This flies in the face of the 'death as a deterrent' argument.

The death penalty is no detterrent whatsoever. The murder rate in America is proof.

Your statement is true about most killers who don't think of the consequences of their actions. Like the killings in SW Missouri today, for example.

Well, that's not necessarily so, new studies are finding:

Studies spur new death penalty debate - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.
The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations — pointing out flaws in the justice system — has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.
What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

Now that there are court disputes over lethal injections, what would be the next method of execution?

California had the gas chamber, then switched to lethal injection.
Some states had firing squad. Some had the electric chair. And hanging was widely used in the 19th century.

So what will be the new method of execution if lethal injection is deemed unconstitutional or too dangerous?

Indeed they are.

The former precludes the existence of a potential person, the latter kills an actual person.

But anyone who believes in "the culture of life" believes an embryo is a person.

So, logically, such a person should be opposed to BOTH practices equally.

And even if it is SUPPOSED to be a deterrent, it's a pretty poorly designed one.

I mean, in the unlikely event that someone who kills someone else stops beforehand to think about it, which is the more unpleasant punishment?

Life in prison with no parole, and all the ugliness and pain that entails, or a quick and (legally mandated) painless end?

I hope you aren't saying that no innocent person has ever been given the death penalty.

American Civil Liberties Union : Death Penalty 101
"Since 1976, 123 death-row prisoners have been released because they were innocent. In addition, at least seven people have been executed since 1976 even though they were probably innocent."

So, it's not a holy grail, something that may never be "found." It's not a case of we MAY at some point in the future execute an innocent person. The grail has already been "found," perhaps as many as seven times. And there are 123 documented "near-miss" cases.

OK, I can imagine you rolling your eyes at this, and planning to say unkind things about the ACLU. But let's put that aside.

Imagine that only ONE of the seven people mentioned above was innocent, but executed anyway. Just one. That seems reasonably likely, given the ACLU has documented seven cases where this most likely happened.

Are you OK with that? Put another way, in your view, is the death penalty worth keeping if one innocent person has been executed because of it?

I'd prefer a simple "yes" or "no," if you please.

BoyCanada, Your country's rules are completely different that
our so-called laws. We have tons of laws that's written in the
law books, but one of the major United States hang-ups is
the law defends the wrong people, and what I am saying is if
there wasn't so much hate Justice might be served in most
major trials. [/quote]

You got that right when you stated that most killers
do not think of the consequences (Criminals and Killers
do come in all Colors). Now I have to dis-agree with
Us normal people do not kill, and I must ask you what
is a normal person?

Race,Hate,Killingand Discrimination isn't what most normal
people think about the majority of their everyday thinking.
The average person who is always keeping shit going,or
lives in fear because they have did harm to someone,and
they are the ones who is always looking around behind
their backs to see who haunting them mentally or physically,
and following them where ever they go.

Young Man Boy Canada, Acting out of fear is a human reaction.
There has been plenty innocent people who died from being
shot out of fear, and the shooter is usually the fearful one.

However, in a case like I just stated they will buy a (what I
call a Saturday night special). A Saturday night special is
a weapon that's sold on the street level, and after using is
thrown away. Also it can be classified a premeditated murder,
and usually that person is going to get caught.

So what are they going to say???...Oh I killed out of fear?,
but what I did was to protect myself.....that's mornal huh?
I know that there's some on here who thinks like that,but
being here is cyberspace saves them, and to be honest
I feel that way at times reading these hate comments,or
getting put on silient for defending myself.

I hope that the State of Georgia do not execute the man
for something that has no real proof, and if it do execute
the man...Georgia is still the way it was 100 years ago.