i need help making these arguments into standard premise/conclusion formats.

Pro-death penalty argument:
"i’ve always believed in ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ All people need to be accountable for their actions, including juveniles. The death penalty is a fair punishment for those who murder – even if they were under 18 when they killed. I don’t believe that killers can be rehabilitated, even if they are young.

since august, my classmates and i have corresponded with death row inn mates in texas as part of a class we’re taking on the criminal justice system. I have been repeatedly shocked and disappointed to see how the inmates lie about their cases. Their inability to be truthful even when they are already in jail has reinforced my opinion.

i don’t feel any sympathy for someone who kills; i don’t care how old they are. it would be one thing if they were 4 or 5 years old and didn’t know right from wrong, but a 16 year old should know better. if a killer has the intellectual ability to understand that what he or she did was wrong, then that killer must pay with his or her life.

in the biblical story of the garden of eden, god tells adam and eve not to eat the fruit, but they eat it anyway. so adam and eve are banned from the garden of eden – one strike and they are out. this principle should hold true for murderers of any age – one strike and you are out.

furthermore, why should taxpayers pay to feed, house, and clothe a murderer for life? killers with life sentences live better than our homeless people or those who work and are poor and deprived.

if you take a life, it cannot be given back. the ultimate punishment for murder should be death, even for teenagers."

anti-death penalty argument:
"minors cannot vote or run for office, and in most cases they cannot live without guardians. minors cannot even hold bank accounts or sign legal contracts without the consent of their adult custodians.

these restrictions recognize the fact that juveniles cannot – and should not – be held legally irresponsible for their actions. why then do so many states choose to execute criminals whose crime were committed before the age of 18? is death not the ultimate in responsibility? if 16 year olds cannot open bank accounts in their own names, why can they pay for crimes with their lives? this is a double standard.

it is with good reason that there are restrictions placed on teenagers. scientific studies show that teenagers lack the ability to sense the great weight that their decisions can have. 16 year olds can certainly differentiate between right and wrong, but they often lack a fully developed awareness of the consequences of their actions. this is the very quality that distinguishes a responsible adult from a child. the american bar association, a professional association for lawyers, agrees. it believes that children are inherently different from adults in their level of responsibility for their actions.

the international community also finds the juvenile death penalty immoral. executing a minor violates respected international treaties. these treaties recognize that society cannot force someone with an underdeveloped sense of the consequences of their actions to pay with their lives for those actions. a judicial system that takes the life of a child does not truly uphold justice."

like i said, i need to turn these two arguments into a standard premise–>conclusion formation, with either well formed or cogent premises. adding implicit premises would be nice, and evaluations need to be specific and substantial.

i really appreciate any help.

thx