[Justify]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

I know the story about an eye for an eye, but isn't there also a story about turning the other cheek and isn't there also something about "thou shalt not kill" and not "thou shalt not kill, except for killers".

Eye for an Eye was from the Old testement when God gave his law. These people had no law before this and needed some type of law to abide by. Turn the other cheek was stated by Jesus. It was not meant to be the law of the land it was meant for the individual Christian. Also the term was not Thou shalt not kill. It was thou shalt not murder. Killing and murder are 2 different things.

Here's a definition so you can better understand.
Murder - The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Kill - To put to death

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

If the death penalty worked as a deterrent far less murders would have to happen in countries that have the death penalty than in those that don't.

Guess what, that isn't the case, it's rather the opposite. Compare the murder rate of the US per capita with that for Canada for instance, or even that of states in the USA with or without the death penalty. The function of the death penalty as a deterrent simply does not work.

You cannot just compare one country to another. More factors go into the argument than that. There is the issue of population, number of cities, urban areas, crime rates..etc. You also have to look at whether a country has used the death penalty consistantly. The US does not. Some states do more than others. The fact is that it is not used consistantly enough to gather good information. If you look at states such as Texas that use the death penalty frequently the murder rate decreased greatly. So I would argue the death penalty does work as a deterrent.