Should Abortion be Legal?

Statistics proves that. I'm not sure if I said it in this thread or another one but the most commonly used ones are between Texas and New York. I mean it really doesn't get more definitive than hard statistics. Countries without the death penalty are more prone to crime, also on statistics. You're twice as likely to get into an altercation in the UK with a knife wielder than you are a gun wielder in the US (here's the source for this one http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323). Same with australia, but not twice as likely but more than likely. In China and many death penalty nations, horrendous violent crimes are less likely to happen

So think about it this way, in the UK, 2 people are injured/killed and in the US, one is injured/killed (percentage because obv US has a much higher population). That's half. Imagine doubling the horrendous crimes I've mentioned earlier. Could any person in their right mind still be anti death penalty and be pro doubling horrendous crimes that will shoot the homicide rate to again, double?

Murdering at least 4% of innocent people seems too high for me. Why do we have to kill criminals? How does that make up for the crime they committed? The whole idea of the death penalty just seems to be born out a thirst for revenge. You can try and find stats to try and back up your claims, but you're certainly not proving anything. My initial argument still holds. Innocent people have to die if you have the death penalty.

Anyways yes, not so hot for death penalty but I could understand in certain situations.

I'm saying that you're correct. But more innocent people will die/receive great bodily injury without the death penalty. I in the past 40 years, 300 innocent people were executed. That's terrible. You're 100% correct. But what's worse is that without it, by using UK statistics, the number of Capital Murder, First Degree Murder, Infanticide and all that good stuff would've technically doubled. In 2013, around 14k people where killed unlawfully (here's the source https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/murder-topic-page/murdermain_final). That's just one year. Imagine multiplying that by 40. That's around 560,000 in 40 years. Now double it. 1.2m (around .3% of the US population). Can you, in your right mind, say that you would rather have, statistically comparing, 560k innocent people killed compared to 300 by state sanctioned murder? Also, it doesn't really get more solid than statistics so yeahhhhh

You honestly think the homicide rate would double in Texas if the death penalty were removed? It's too easy to look for stats that fit your narrative. There're so many factors that go into violent crime.

Hell fucking yes. I lived in The Colony, Texas and they are white supremacists. 100% if Capital murder was not punishable by death, those guys would for sure shoot minorities. I'm not even joking here.

I'm neutral though, I'm not for or against the death penalty. It's a lose lose situation either way. It would rarely happen if you treated the underlying causes.

There are a lot of factors, but by foundational statistics, which is basically the most solid evidence out there, the death penalty deters horrendous violent crimes. As for the too many factors go into violent crime, you're not wrong. But do the factors matter after a numerous amount of innocent people are unlawfully killed? I mean we're talking about 300 vs 560k. It's not a small margin. Even if it was 300 vs. 301, there isn't a reason to pick the 300, am I not right?