Anti Death Penalty Justifications

• Rehabilitation is more favorable to keep sanctity and practicality of human life
• Rehabilitation actually has a practical end goal, apart from mercy killing
• Death should not be used as a punishment due to it's impracticality
• Death should only be used in self-defense, only used on those who are deemed un-rehabilitatiable. That way, there is a practical reason for abstaining from the death penalty.
• If true goal is punitive justice, then we'd have to rape rapists, almost everyone knows how impractical and (stigmatizing) upsetting that is.
• Punitive justice does not have an end goal other than just releasing emotion. That emotion, can be released with (a lot of) self-control and resilience.
• At some point you must come to realize that if everyone murdered another person, who'd be the person to sentence everyone else to death?
• By this logic, no one deserves to be alive, since we are all murderers.
• All of those on the death row grew up poor and had mental issues, do people "deserve" to be poor as children? Is being born in an abusive household something that is deserved by poor children? No.
• Therefore, no one "deserves" anything really.
• Responsibility is assigned to those who can change; There is no pointing in blaming a murderer for murdering if they, themselves had a bad child being controlled by influences as such from childhood.
• Most of those on death row had adverse childhoods, and if that's not the case, they had a genes predisposed to become a murderer
• There is a cause behind the person doing the killing
• That cause matters because that is what we should target instead of targeting the symptom of the problem, especially given that we are not in a life or death situation.
• By assigning responsibility logic, it is the knife's fault for murdering the person instead of the person who used the knife in such a manner because the person who used the knife was controlled by his enviornment to do so as such.
• Why can't the responsibility be placed on the "victim" - The victim should have known better than to trust a stranger, they learned that not everyone that looks like a human being is a human being.
• It does not make sense to evaluate a person based on a singular event rather consider all of the influences since those influences also contributed to their behavior.
• It's like only caring about the fact that a person crashed into the person but not considering the fact that there was a person forcing the driver to crash into the person with a gun in their head - see: Michael forcing franklin to drive in Simeon's car dealership. In this case Franklin shouldn't be penalized because he was reasonably scared for his life.
• It does not make sense to think of a person as anything special as different from an inanimate object such as a rock or something, we are really nothing special and subject to the same laws as inanimate objects.
• If you continue to ask why and identify the cause of that action by looking at their history, some common signs you will see are mental illness and lack of proper childhood conditioning (ex. abuse)
• It does not make sense to theoretically think about situations that are not happening at the current moment.
• Sometimes, the person of cause isn't the person of responsibility
• For example, blaming your problems on your parents for birthing you is technically true, however, in this case, just because it was not your fault does not necessarily make it not your responsibility.
• What if a bear killing a human being, does it get the death penalty, what if an apple fell onto a button pressed it and it killed a human  being as a result of the button being pressed by the apple? do we identify the cause of what moved the apple?
• What if we all killed each other, who deserves to execute who? do we deserve to kill?
• What if a bee were to sting you and cause you to die unjustly, would that would be a murder?
• Would we go after tbe bee or bear that killed you in search for retributive justice? When in reality the cause must have been a misbalanced or abusive childhood of the murderer? Responsibility is nothing but a euphemism for blame, it is just we just blame the victim of a bad childhood?
• This exposes the thought process of the death penalty, by emphasizing certain characteristics of the murderer, namely being the human resemblance and DNA, the pro-death penalty supporters fail to recognize the reason behind the murder and fail to address it, rather just adding a symptom of the problem.
• I don't believe death should be used as a retributive punishment, rather only one pursued based on practicalism and risk-taking.
• Pro-Death penalty supporters like to point out that the reoffending rate for a measured "executed murder" is 0 percentage, however, they fail to recognize the pain that this causes for the murderers and the victims' family, those are real emotional effects it has on society. I believe they should be considered.
•