When a convicted murderer is sentenced to life in prison, us taxpayers must feed him/her and make sure he/she has some sort of healthcare, etc. I was told that it actually costs more money to execute a prisoner. Is that true? Thank you for reading this.
2007-07-01 13:18:41 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The way our system is set up, I'm sure it costs more to execute them than to house them. It could change easily enough by cutting down on all the silly appeals that are allowed by idiotic Judges. They can appeal over and over and over again endlessly.
2007-07-01 13:32:30 · answer #1 · answered by Ricky D 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Life in prison costs more. Those who claim otherwise of including the cost of 20 - 30 years in prison in the alleged cost of execution. They are also including the attorneys fees for BOTH sides of the endless appeals. If we limit the time for appeals and execute the sentence in 5 years instead of 20 to 30, the cost drops dramatically.
Suicide has recently become the 2nd leading cost of death ON DEATH ROW in California. The leading cause is OLD AGE. Execution is 3rd. Life in prison only costs less, because that is what most of them serve anyway.
2007-07-01 22:01:59 · answer #2 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The appeal process sucks up tons of money and could be modified to cut the cost but bleeding hearts keep holding back putting a quick appeals process in place to speed up the execution or release. The taxpayers shell out billions of dollars for appeals and forget the those who get the death sentence must have really been deserving of it. The actual execution only uses a small amount of drugs or whatever compared to the cost of housing someone for decades and giving them all the services, especially in later years of life.
2007-07-01 20:26:48 · answer #3 · answered by mr conservative 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
From what I recall in school way back in the day they said it cost the tax payers more $$$ to execute a prisoner than it does to feed them. I don't know if that's really true, but I imagine if it is then it has to do with all the legal proceedings in court.
2007-07-01 20:22:22 · answer #4 · answered by Who Knows??? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For people who have committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, I'd think death would cost less- it also saves space in an already crowded system and resources. Although the legal fees incurred with each appeal would be costly, we must not forget the high cost of healthcare which must be given to the inmates- especially if they have chronic diseases.
2007-07-01 20:31:15 · answer #5 · answered by punkstarr189 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes significantly more. The Death Row of a prison is usually in the Disciplinary Segregation Unit...this is much higher security and supervision than the general population where lifers go. Higher security and supervision =costs. These people generally stay in these units many years as the court battle wage on in appeals....which is where the heaviest costs are incurred.
2007-07-01 20:25:03 · answer #6 · answered by heyubuzzme 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't see how it could cost more to execute a prisoner than to house one for life. Has anyone ever broken it down to see ?Personally I don't care if it cost more. I think murders, rapists, and pedophiles should be executed.
2007-07-01 20:30:24 · answer #7 · answered by Aunt Doobie 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Due to the endless appeals process for death row inmates; executions are actually more expensive. This is because of all the courts time it constantly takes up and all the experts the state has to pay for, usually on both sides, because many homicide defendants have court-appointed lawyers.
2007-07-01 20:29:32 · answer #8 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The higher cost isn't in the actual 'execution', it's the cost of lawyers and court resources for the legal system for the various appeals.
2007-07-01 20:48:34 · answer #9 · answered by Crystal 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I heard that too. It's because of all the appeals once their sentence is issued.
2007-07-01 20:20:53 · answer #10 · answered by Kami 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋