English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

if u agree with death penalty, then how are u going to argue the fact that death penalty costs about 48% more than life imprisonment?

2006-09-06 09:35:02 · 17 answers · asked by wills 3 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

i got this statistic from www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

2006-09-06 10:17:19 · update #1

17 answers

I am for the death penalty, and I am not going to deny the fact that the way the government and human rights activists have campaigned and instituted lethal injection as the preferred method for carrying out such penalties, is exceedingly expensive. However, I see no reason to worry about pain, discomfort or any other feelings the guilty party may have during the execution. They obviously were not worried about their victim's (or sometimes victims') rights or the humane treatment of them. I know this comes off harsh and you might find it barbaric, but if they have no feelings for other people, I see no reason to keep them on death row (with the best food, entertainment, libraries, Internet, cable TV). The price of a bullet, or even a rope is much more than they deserve, I am disgusted that my tax dollars go to keep these murderers comfortable. If we make the punishments as harsh as possible it will discourage people from committing such perverse and heinous crimes.

2006-09-06 09:45:50 · answer #1 · answered by PoisonSoomac 2 · 0 0

You raise a good point. It does cost more, a lot more to house a death penalty inmate than a regular inmate. Plus you have what, 15-20 years of appeals? It all adds up.

But remember one thing. The death penalty is reserved for the most heinous, most abominable of murderers, i.e. serial killers, child murderers.

And this is a tiny percentage of the overall prison population. When you put it in perspective, you're only talking about a handful of inmates in each state prison.

2006-09-06 09:56:32 · answer #2 · answered by Ed A 3 · 0 0

If the death penalty was more strictly enforced, individuals would be less likely to perpetrate heinous crimes, therefore lowering the total amount of individuals in prison for life or the death penalty.

Stricter punishment = less crime

Just look at Japan.

.... and FYI approximately 75% of the cost of death penalty is associated with the trial portion of the said defendent. The trial process needs to be rethought.

2006-09-06 09:39:34 · answer #3 · answered by MzHazelnut22 3 · 0 0

Okay, I know the christians are going to take away points but here goes.... I agree there is a place for it.. I think each case has to be individual, I dont believe in case law because it sets the bar for future criminals when in fact every crime should be tried alone and decided alone as not all are the same, or even remotely.... if someone is a predatory killer, its best they not be alive, they will kill again as soon as they are released... or predatory child molesters or killers... for sure... get rid of them, you cant help them, they arent right in the head... domestic crimes..... well.... depends.. usually someone who kills someone they know isnt going to go on a rampage.. usually but again... try the case in its indivuality and make a decision based on it and it alone... if the law was set up this way it would be better... case law should not be part of the equation in any seeking of the death penalty. And for all those people who cry "what about executing the innocent" well yes, it will happen but the numbers will be miniscule compared to the saving of future innocent victims... so accidently kill two people as opposed to about 100 who are victims of violent senseless crimes... i could live with that.

2016-03-27 00:33:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Dear Wills- I don't care how much it cost. It shouldn't come down to that. It is what is right and what is fair. Anyway, how much does it cost to take someone out behind the prison and put a bullet in their head. The only reason it costs so much is because we drag out a death sentence for 20 or 30 years. Make it instant and make it public. Anyway.

2006-09-06 09:46:23 · answer #5 · answered by fire_side_2003 5 · 1 0

cest la vie u cant make an omellette with out breakin a few eggs no mattter how much it costs when some one like ted bundy rides the lightning its worth every cent

2006-09-06 10:41:45 · answer #6 · answered by Dan B 4 · 0 0

It would be a lot easier to take a gun and shoot them! They don't deserve to live because they have done wrong why keep them around....most likely when they get out of prison they will do the same crime!

2006-09-06 09:37:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Where do you get those statistics from? If that's true, then I might change my mind, but I can't believe we pay less to nuke the poor bastards then keeping them alive for 50 years.

2006-09-06 09:41:55 · answer #8 · answered by Olive Green Eyes 5 · 0 0

It only costs that much (if your numbers are correct) because of the horribly inefficient way the system is organized.

2006-09-06 09:38:52 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 0

We get rid of the people who were meant to stay in prison for life so we can arrest more small time crime associates such as check forgers and drug dealers, welcome to America.

2006-09-06 09:49:58 · answer #10 · answered by more_drama_than_paris_hilton 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers