Death Penalty In Dave Anderson's Discussion Of Death Row

In discussions of death row, one controversial issue has been whether or not it should be legal. On one hand, Dave Anderson argues that it in fact should be legal. On the other hand, Tracy Dye contends that it should be illegal. My own view agrees with Dye, that capital punishment should be illegal because of moral hypocrisy and simply outdated ways. In Dave Anderson’s arguments, he deduces that the constitution allows for it in certain cases in the fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendment. He also says that life sentences are an unfair financial burden on the state, at a possible cost of 5.5 million dollars if a 6% tax increase is assumed. His argument also included that it is often the only rational and moral response to some crimes such

His moral reasonings tie into the fact that opposing arguments say not to play God, but I believe religious arguments and viewpoints should be excluded from government issues. The Church and State are supposed to be separate anyhow.
Tracy Dye argues that the death penalty falls under the cruel and unusual punishment category, using examples of interrogation methods performed by the CIA such as rectal infusion, waterboarding, nudity, and chaining of terrorism suspects. In her article she also includes circumstances that crimes were committed under, like times of intoxication or persuasion. She also brings up cases of exoneration, including a study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, stating that over 4% of convicted death row prisoners are innocent.
Dye makes strong points that I agree with completely. I think people often overlook that people on death row could have acted out of passion, mental illness, or while they were intoxicated. A repetition of their crimes can be avoided by medication, therapy, and even just an elongated