One could consider that death penalty is a mechanism by which a government deprives someone from his or her humanity: by putting an early life to someone's life, you take the person as an object and not as a human who has a right to live by the sole fact that he or she is alive. As an object, you are free to do anything with it but Kant developed the idea that a Man, alongside his humanity and dignity, is not a tool - a Man is himself by the sole fact that he is himself, independently of any other consideration. Therefore destroying a person, to achieve any goal - even a legitimate goal, would be contrary to his fundamental rights as a human being

When the crime is not murder, death penalty is one step further, deepening even more into violence and not restoring social peace

You can also devise on the modalities of death penalty: seen as a revenge over someone when family is watching the execution - morbid.

Not quite true: http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost

Here's a really good source for the OP:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/against_1.shtml

And they also have a page for pro-capital punishment which you might want to read as well for comparison purposes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/for_1.shtml

Not a Christian, but I believe the rule is "Thou shalt not murder". They couldn't really spin it any other way, as they were busy crucifying and stoning people while they were writing it all down.

I checked into it while I was totalling up my score in Commandment Bingo (I've got 8 / 10).

Try looking into state law and go from there. I suggest Texas, Ohio and Oklahoma. Texas in particular as they were one of the last states still using the electric chair.

Mmhh ... so moving along this line of thoughts - it would be a matter of greater importance?
The talion-commandment or the commandment god supposedly left directly though Moses? Nah I should stop - I am not religious only curious!

Good luck for ur debate - and try to ask an actual human rights or Anti-Death Penalty organisation to provide some materials. Such organisations are usually very willing to provide information.

You only really need one piece of information to decide Death Penalty as a punishment is never to be used :

NO justice system ever used is so totally foolproof to not convict an innocent of any crime "requiring" it as punishment. It is impossible to undo this punishment when you later discover it was an error.

You missed the next verse:
Matthew 5:39 "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Which probably means that evil people are left handed, and possibly means that all left handed people are evil.

"In the Middle Ages it was believed that when a person was writing with their left hand they were possessed by the Devil. (This was uncommon, particularly as there were fewer literate people). Left-handed people were therefore considered to be evil."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinister

So... sounds about right :D.

La loi du Talion est démodée... Suffit de voir le système pénal en Europe :-)

Et puis un régime dictatorial a utilise exactement les memes arguments pour se debarasser des opposants : " Un tribunal d'apparence avec pour peine la mort "

This argument fails in some cases – say Eichmann or [DELETED].

It doesn't fail in some cases. Because it's not something that can be determined on a case by case basis. It's something which must be determined based on an assessment of the competence of the judicial process on the whole.

In any case, he wants to be executed. Indeed many, if faced with lifelong imprisonment with no hope of release would probably choose death.

But life and reality are not sth ‘general’ or 'on the whole'. There ARE composed, as you wrote, on a case by case base. And for such cases I mentioned penal system should have the ability to sentence sb for death. Any other punishment would just not be adequate and right.

We're talking "Average Joe" trials, here, aren't we? As opposed to special tribunals investigating war crimes and the like?

And *ANY* trial-by-jury these days are probably tainted by TV shows such as CSI :
"Well, on TV they show inside 45 minutes that the science behind this is irrefutable, so he MUST be guilty!"

:P