07 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoI believe that studies have shown that in the US it costs as much or more to execute people than it does to keep them in prison for life. People are in solitary confinement on death row for at least a decade in most cases and the government has to finance endless appeals with the government paying both sides' legal fees in most cases.
Good for them. The Uk still wastes money keeping Ian Brady alive!
Studies have also shown that the deterrent effect of death over life imprisonment is minimal.
I get as angry as anyone when I hear about a brutal murder, and I certainly don't feel bad for murderers who are executed. But between the marginal benefits and the real risk of executing an innocent person, at some point you have to ask yourself whether it's really worth it. The northeast corner of the United States has executed a grand total of one person in the last 37 years; and that was a guy who specifically wanted to be executed and intentionally dropped all his appeals. We seem to be doing fine without it.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76For the states which employ the death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.(3) In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million.(4) In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment.(5) The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually.
I believe that studies have shown that in the US it costs as much or more to execute people than it does to keep them in prison for life. People are in solitary confinement on death row for at least a decade in most cases and the government has to finance endless appeals with the government paying both sides' legal fees in most cases.
Studies have also shown ...[text shortened]... o be executed and intentionally dropped all his appeals. We seem to be doing fine without it.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by ChronicLeakydoesn't seem barbaric to me. Some people are better off when they're dead.
Forget about killing innocents. Killing the guilty is barbaric, and the notion of "turn him over to the parents" is misconstrual of what criminal law is even for.
It would a waste of money and space to keep serial rapists and serial killers in jail.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyLike I said before, it should only be used when the criminal is proved beyond doubt to be guilty.
And how do we avoid putting the wrong people up against the wall?
Where do we keep people while we decide if they are indeed the right people to put up against the wall?