My opening argument is simple: Murderers do not care about the human rights of their victims, so should not have any rights themselves. Article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights is "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." (http://www.un.org...) The murderer denied their victim that, so why should they get it themselves? If the murderer won't respect other people's human rights they should forfeit their own human rights as well.
Murderers are regarded as inhuman, due to high crimes. They kill humans for a reason, often out of the seven deadly sins. After detectives and the police reveal their crimes, they are sentenced for punishment. Punishment can include many years of imprisonment or death. I believe they shouldn't be killed for their crimes. If England were to kill the murderers out of justice, England would be guilty of being murderers, because are they not taking a human's life?
England wouldn't be murderers if they put murderers to death as , you said yourself, "murderers are regarded as inhuman". People kill animals all the time because they are "inhuman", so why should murderers be any different? Some people say that to keep the murderers living is punishment enough as they will regret their crimes, but if they have no remorse, they will never feel guilty so it isn't punishment for them? Murderers, particularly mass murderers, need to realise that murder is wrong.
Murderers still deserve human rights, because of Pro's evidence:Article 3 of universal declaration of human rights. They should get the rights, because they are still humans. If murderers won't respect other humans' human rights, they should not forfeit their rights, for they are still humans. If they forfeit it, it turns into: murder, suicide, and self-hate. Inhuman describes one who is cruel. Are humans cruel to get food? Murders are still humans, and England should respect their human rights.