I read your list. And there was only one person who was sentenced to life without parole, and he murdered a fellow inmate. But that's an entirely different conversation. And please, taper your emotions.
And just because you want these people executed is irrelevant, many don't. And where are you getting that I want to "subject innocent children to released murderers"? You just made that part up. So that, I don't understand what put that in your head.
Okay, here's where we are.
You want executions because they'll kill again. I suggested life without parole as an alternative, which you've still failed to address. Keep in mind my response to your list.
Yes, guards get murdered by convicts. But there's also another side, inmates are consistently malnourished, beaten, and even sexual assaulted by guards as well. So, there's that problem.
And also, you failed to remark on the fact the number of inmates on death row that were eventually found to be innocent of crimes that they've been charged with.
All in all, you've provided no information to directly counter the facts the I've presented. It's all been founded upon moralistic and emotional values.
Just to recap, here are the points that I brought up:
1) The death penalty is costly and unsuccessful at deterring crime.
2) There is an alarming number of former death row inmates whose innocence was eventually proven.
3) Life without parole (meaning, they're in their until they die) could be a better alternative.
You haven't countered any of these points. All I've gotten from you is an argument about "what about the children?!" and you thinking that I want to "subject children" to convicts, which I'm still very uncertain of what gave you that idea. I'm almost convinced you're just an internet troll trying to ruffle my feathers with that one.
Your turn.