2006-09-16 12:17:28 · 20 answers · asked by Vinnie C 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No. With all the appeals, the legal fees and court costs to prosecute a capital crime runs into the millions.
2006-09-16 12:22:07 · answer #1 · answered by Jim H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is cheaper to imprison for life even if the execution is performed with a 22 caliber shortgun without any appeal WHY?
The cost of freedom. The "State" or "System" call it what you will should never have the power of life and death over the citizenry cause when spitting on the flag becomes an executable offense (remember the system decides what is executable offenses when they decide to make whatever law THEY want to against US) I'll be the first to go the way things R lately. Long Live King George!!!
2006-09-16 12:44:45 · answer #2 · answered by richarde c 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
not at all. its a common misconception that executing is cheaper. nearly all capital cases are appealed and the costs to the government to resolve these appeals is usually millions of dollars. the cost of imprisoning a person for one year runs about $10,000-20,000. if the average cost of an execution (including appeals) is $2 million, then that would be equivalent to about the cost of 100-200 years of imprisonment.
the argument that the death penalty is cheaper is blatantly false. the only way to make it cheaper would be to do away with a lot of the current appeals process, increasing the likelihood that innocent people would be killed.
2006-09-16 12:53:12 · answer #3 · answered by student_of_life 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it is but some people would twist the numbers to make it seem like it is more expensive to keep him in jail forever. For example, judges and lawyers on the public payroll will get paid regardless of whether or not they work on a death row case. Therefore it is not fair to include these numbers in what it costs to execute someone because the same cost is paid regardless.
2006-09-16 12:37:45 · answer #4 · answered by remmo16 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually it is usually more expensive to execute a person than to give them a life sentence. This begins with the effort for a capital conviction which is itself more expensive. If a capital conviction is reached, the process of carrying out the sentence often takes a decade or more during which there are constant legal appeals.
2006-09-16 12:33:15 · answer #5 · answered by bambam 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, the drugs or electricy required for executions is much cheaper than the resources spent for the food, housing, clothing, medical care and other basic needs afforded to inmates. However, I think its much more effective to let someone rot in prison so they have their whole lives to think about what they have done and guilt to set in, and evetually hopefully remorse too.
2006-09-16 12:26:31 · answer #6 · answered by cesarfabunan 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In total it costs the taxpayers more money to execute someone due to the appeals and the fact that people are on death row for many years.
2006-09-16 12:29:10 · answer #7 · answered by bob44554 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's probably cheaper to imprison them for life... but only because of the endless appeals that go on for years.
2006-09-16 12:48:23 · answer #8 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yea, it's pretty smart to feed them and entertain them for 20 years. And the real upswing to that is we get to pay for it in addition to being victims to whatever crimes they committed in the first place.
2006-09-16 12:29:33 · answer #9 · answered by Skanky McSkankypants 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. Depending on the type of confinement he or she is in, it costs between $120,000 and $150,000 per year to institutionalize someone. If they're dead it doesn't cost anything.
2006-09-16 12:26:03 · answer #10 · answered by old lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋