Right, so just a little heads up but saying someone has poor reading comprehension is an ad hominem and doesn't add anything to your point. Otherwise we might as well just take that final step straight to name calling and well .. while I'm always down for fucking around I don't think this subject is all that complicated so I'll give it the ole college try first.

Since you seem to think that not killing innocent people isn't a valid argument to ban the death penalty we already have an incredibly huge difference in values and morals, so I'll add more reasons. There's a lot but here's a few as to why the death penality is hot garbage.

• It's ineffective / doesn't work as a deterrent
• It's inhumane / retribution isn't justice
• It's exploitative / history of racial and economic biases
• It's costly / literally costs more than a life sentence

However, I will double back to the number one reason it's bad, which is a simple argument based on morality. And that is that it's irreversible. In other words, killing innocent people is bad mkay? Ask yourself this, assuming the parties involved are of no danger to anyone anymore, if you could kill someone evil but you had to kill an innocent person to do it, would you? It's really simple logic. Vengeance is no excuse to kill innocent people. I don't see how that's debatable but since we disagree on that then there's really nowhere to go further on that note.

The death penalty doesn’t deter crime and does cost more than simply keeping someone in prison for life. What purpose does it serve?

"better for 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent suffer" is how Benjamin Franklin put it, feeling the usual ratio of 10:1 didn't seem strong enough to drive home his point.

It is more likely that their reading comprehension is just fine - and your writing skills are flawed.

L+Ratio+Your mom+shut up

You have some really false equivalency going on in your logic. Car accidents are not the same as incorrectly sentencing someone to death.

Cars are useful for numerous reasons and car accidents are a natural result of cars being used. The death penalty is a completely revocable and preventable government policy that ends innocent peoples lives for no positive gain.

There an alternatives to the death penalty that dont end innocent peoples lives (or any lives!) and don't give governments the power to murder its citizens.

I personally dont trust the government to 1. Be competent enough to catch the correct person. 2. To end a person's life.

I'm uncomfortable with your "dispose of the worst" phrasing but I don't disagree that we should reform our prison system. It's just very clear that the death penalty is not the solution.

>With cars, they made them safer and smarter. We have to find a better system to dispose of the worst. That is the argument we should have.

We have that, it's called "don't execute them". Which incidentally is cheaper and has all the deterrent value.

But cars are dogshit and ruin our cities and ecosystems. So yes actually, let's ban cars plz