Moral Question

Holy ****, how? What's the main cost in regard to the lethal injection? Seeing as it takes so many years for imprisonment to get to that sort of cost, even if most of the otherwise executed would be kept in gaol for up to fifty years, which is highly unlikely, it really wouldn't add that much, cost-wise. However admittedly that probably wouldn't include the cost of building more prisons to accommodate the criminals who would otherwise have been given the death penalty. Anyone know how many people are given the death penalty each year?

I also agree that people should reap the consequences of their actions, but I feel this situation is far more complicated for such a blanket rule to be applied.

Although I feel that severe cases of DUI and similar offences do warrant prison time, I do agree that it isn't necessary. More severe punishments in regards to their licence and heavier fines would suffice.

Yeah, that's true. It's not a viable option in the world's current situation.

 

Executions cost more mainly because of the judicial process. The convict can appeal several times, which dramatically escalates costs for the state. Execution's a very slow process, which takes at least a few years to finalize. During that time they also have to keep the prisoner fed, clothed, sheltered.... The court costs usually outweigh keeping them in prison.

 

I can't remember off the top of my head, but this includes figures such as the court costs (The three appeals factored in), the bureaucratic processes (You would NOT believe how much **** you have to wade through to punch in a DP), that kind of thing. For the 40+ year imprisonment, it's considering non-solitary, regular meals, working convicts, that kind of thing. The figures are the worst and best of their respective worlds, but you get the point.

A quote I found while digging for the next bit

Adjust for years and stuff, of course, but you get the point.

I can't seem to find the amount actually executed, but as of January 1st, 2008, the number of inmates on death row is an absolutely astounding 3,309. What the hell America.

I dunno....Sucks to be them if they die, but why the hell are you stealing nuts? If you're stealing bread from Wal-Mart to feed your kids, well go for it. There's better ways, but you need food. If you're stealing nuts, that's not a necessity.

 

I think the main issue here is we have toxic chemicals injected into our foods and then we eat them. Sure they remove the chemicals but they were there. What happened to the good old days (probably long before i was born) where we actually ate foods without all of this crap added to it?

It's killing us I'm sure.

I say if you steal toxic things and eat them and are sick or die as a result, well your bad I think. Shouldn't have stole it in the first place.

A potential Darwin anyone??

And lastly I think Life without parole is much better then capital punishment. For one (Capital punishment) it's more expensive, takes years to organise, has it's opponents who don't like it and the criminal moves to the next world without a fuss.

But LWP, there the criminal is stuck in prison for the rest of his life. And if they make it a real boring life for him/her then they'd wish they were dead. Also there has to be guards to watch these criminals. So that's more jobs for people. And cooks to feed everyone etc. And you get the point. Plus it's cheaper and easier to organise.

So for those reasons I'm against Capitol punishment.

 

I am for the death penalty primarily because it does make things cheaper if the judicial process surounding its use is made more efficient. When every death penalty pretty much appeals to the supreme court before the end that's not a problem with the sentence it's a problem with the system. If those cases were treated more like average murder cases the cost wouldn't be nearly as high and money could be saved as well as space opened up in prisons. Of course there would have to be strict (beyond that of a normal murder trial) evidentiary requirements in the initial trial to ensure the person convicted is the one who commited the crime.

Also some of you mentioned the human cost of executing someone (that of the prisoners family), think about it this way what would be better a finite end to a person's evil deeds or visting them in prison x number of times per year for the next 10? 20? 30+? years and each time having everyone you took with you remember the convicted persons actions (whether it be rape and murder, or multiple homicides, or theft and murder etc...). Also on the flip side of the coin what do you think is better for the victims family a finite end or knowing everyday for the next x number of years that the person who took a loved one from you is still out there living higher quality of life than some of the extreme impoverished people in the country.

Basicly in my opinion if the system is made more efficient (without losing accuracy or perferably gaining accuracy) it is cheaper to execute smoeone in a monetary value as well as human cost than to let them live with life without perole.