The death penalty makes no sense.

[Amarok]

1. I am a advocate civilized treatment of prisoners and for a just and good society i don't consider that a hang up and please air mark "rehabilitation" it works i have done it . And while it's true Re-offense happens it's also true that at least in America little effort is put in in trying .

2.I'm not saying what they did is okay it just does not warrant inhumane treatment and i think pyschological torture is a bit more then feeling hard done by .

3.Thousands of charities would say otherwise 

4. Good 

5. And not killing a person or psychologically torturing them dies them these rights ?

1.  The re-offending rate in released offenders does not justify the threat of letting dangerous offenders loose to repeat their barbarous acts.  While there is some success -kudos to you - seriius offenders shouldn't be allowed out.

2.  I'm not justifying physical or psychological abuse or torture.  But I don't see locking up a prisoner, especially a violent repeat offender, as torture.  Of course the prisoner might disagree but we see them playing the victim game all too often.  An example is the piece of shit neo nazi who murdered so many kids in Norway.  A few years ago he complained of inhumane treatment because the authorities wouldn't provide him with an xbox.

3.  Yes thousands of charities and the millions who support them would disagree.  But the tens of millions who voted for the likes of Trump wouldn't.

4.  Good part 2.

5.  Again, who said the victims or their families would get to torture anyone?  And I don't see prison sentence as torture.  In fact many prisoners in the West get better access to food and medical treatment than the average citizen.  Such a shame they're inconvenienced by being jailed for their crimes...

Hypothetical:  Eight year old Tina is walking to school one morning and is attacked by one or more dogs.  She suffers horrible wounds and eventually dies of the wounds.

Should the dogs be put to sleep or smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and told not to do it again?

I hope your answer would be the former.

Now, replace the dogs in the scenario with humans.  They kidnap, rape and torture Tina before killing her.

Should they be treated any differently than the dogs?

Why?

1.And the possibility of re offense is not enough to condemn someone to death or torture who might be saved .

2.Accept it fits definition of torture and one extreme case does not justify that torture 

3. And people who voted for Trump are not even a majority of the populous

5. Access to food and water does not make something not torture. That's  the same logic trumps defenders use to excuse his child prisons .Imprisonment for life is cruel and inhumane .

Your analogy does not work 

1. A dog cannot be held responsible for it's action. 

2.No i don't believe i dog should be killed for an attack it's unfair to hold a dog responsible.

3. I never compare a dog to human for an attack .The same way i would not treat a human who broke their leg the same as horse

---

Why life in prison without parole is the definition of cruel and inhuman treatment 

https://decarceratepa.info/voices/life-w...nhuman-and

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/...other-name