[Lusankya]

Originally Posted by TheEvilDookie

It doesn't need to mention anything you cited because your information was outdated.

It doesn't mean the numbers it dealt with no longer matter. The article you cited only deals with a tiny portion of the relevant data. Without context, the information it provides is meaningless at best, misleading at worst. Even outdated data is better.

That's beside the point. It's happened before and the chances of it happening again still exist. You can't escape that fact.

The chances of it happening could be infinitesimally close to zero. Prove that this is relevant.

The point I was making was that for those who are impoverished and can't afford health care, which is a large percentage of people, have a higher chance of committing a crime that sends them to prison. And it's there that they receive the health care that they could never afford before.

And this matters to the death penalty not at all.

Don't go calling my argument irrelevant when you were the one who brought it up in the first place o_o

Uh, no. It was your argument. I merely responded.

You've proven nothing against the financial aspects. Your source if from 1997. It is outdated. Also, you can't explain that killing somebody isn't a cruel and/or unusual punishment and that it doesn't clog the court system. I mean if you want be super technical, then yeah sure, they're opinions, but those opinions are ones that are accepted by most people.

Baseless statement is baseless (not the clogging of the court systems). Prove it.

That doesn't mean that they wouldn't know about it. They have world news too.

Knowing isn't the same thing as caring.

Once again, opinions that most people agree with.

Prove it.

The court system is related to the legislative branch which determines whether to invoke the death penalty or not therefore it is partially their fault.

Yes, and the sky being blue is partially the fault of the ground. Your logic does not hold up. Why is it the fault of the court system what the legislative branch does? Why is it the fault of the legislative branch what the court system does? We are debating about the death penalty, not politics. If you cannot make an argument without appealing to things beyond the scope of this debate, then don't make an argument.

Because just because you kill the criminal doesn't mean the victim will come back to life. What's there not to get?

What madness drove you to think that the intent of execution is to bring the victim back? The death penalty punishes. That is all. It fulfills that purpose. This argument is the equivalent of stating that cars should be abolished because they do not teleport you to your destination instantly.