Personally, for the vast majority of situations - actually, all situations, I am against the death penalty. With the possibility of false convictions or being used to kill off opposition (or gay people in some places), it's horrendous. With the fact that dead people can't help us figure out how to prevent pedophilia, it's pointless.
But then again there are some major suck in the world and sometimes it would seem nice to just see the back of it. On the plus side we'd have less people, and the world is overpopulated. Or would we? Populations tend to rise dramatically after wars, like people are having 10 kids to counteract all the death. So mebbe the families of death penalty recipients have more kids than average? I don't know but it's an interesting thought.
What about you? What do you think?
life imprisonment does very little for three reasons: it does not rehabilitate them in the vary vast majority of cases, the environment of keeping hundreds of murderers and rapists together will only reinforce the nature that puts them into prison, and it is ENORMOUSLY EXPENSIVE!.
IT is merely a expression that the majority of murderers , hardened ones more specifically, for the most part work their way up through lesser crimes, often being sent to jail many many times for smaller things before committing a higher offense. my point was that in that case, the numerous attempts of the system to try to fix them have not worked, and so why, upon falling over the precipice of homicide, would it be easier to go back
i would like to note i misspoke in the first part. let me rephrase: conventional sentences do nothing to rehabilitate them, where the sentence is 25-life, but where through the stated appeals you referred to, it often get knocked to 20 years or so. and in the case where they are then free, more often than not, they will perpetrate the crime again. those who have life sentences or on death row are the abysmal minority. the majority are with other convicts and will be released within a 20 year span or so. so yes they will get out. and i don't know of any rapist that gets a life sentence, except if he is a high profile serial case one, in which case, he would not e with the aforementioned normal cons. i understand the costs of appeals, but the costs of that are quite comparable, whereas a death row inmate might have more support, the life sentence convict will also rack up very vast amounts in legal fees. that is the bane and savior of our system: we give that right to everyone to make sure justice will be carried out as much as we can. so you can't compare one as a nil and the other as a huge amount, because that is simply not the case. and even with more costly means, such as lethal injection or gassing, that still is fairly paltry compared to having to keep more specific prisons, just for full lifers open, which we often have to do, and feed, clothe, and care for them for 60 years or so. as to the rehabilitation, i think you should serve a time more on the high side of the scale for each individual crime, than not, since i do doubt some persons rehabilitation, i still want the longest time that is still reasonable to make SURE they are. as to the last one, i believe we have addressed the cons of that above. and if nothing else, from a very neutral and cold view of it, it is fair, it is just. so once a time to assure the conviction was valid has been done with, i see no reason to delay what men and women, informed of the implications, chose is right.
I don't support the death penalty, mostly because the possibility of convicting an innocent person still exists. Also, it actually does cost less to keep someone in jail for life.
I am for the death penalty in case of no doubt and very heinous killings.
"Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases."
Erm... the maths for that sentence is insane. Let me just quote you something.
JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases."
How on earth can something that costs $1.2 Million have a total cost that is $3.6 million more than something else? $1.2 Million is... LESS than $3.6. Unless you somehow argue that the state is making money off of death penalty people, I suggest you check your source.
To Vertigo 0ne,
that is a hyphen. as in one statement, not two. not it costs 1.2 mil. which is 3.6 mil more than DP. as in it is 1.2-3.6 mil more than DP
Then your source is wrong:
Assessment of Costs by Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell: The authors calculated that, if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years.
"The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually"
"Using conservative rough projections, the Commission (The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice) estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year."
A study released by the Urban Institute on March 6, 2008 forecast that the lifetime cost to taxpayers for the capitally-prosecuted cases in Maryland since 1978 will be $186 million. That translates to $37.2 million for each of the state’s five executions since the state reenacted the death penalty. The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.) The study examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 and found that those cases will cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not existed as a punishment. At every phase of a case, according to the study, capital murder cases cost more than non-capital murder cases.
Of the 162 capital cases, there were 106 cases in which a death sentence was sought but not handed down in Maryland. Those cases cost the state an additional $71 million compared to the cost non-death penalty cases. Those costs were incurred simply to seek the death penalty where the ultimate outcome was a life or long-term prison sentence.
The source in question has other data from several other states, but it all reaches the same conclusion.
I don't believe in the death penalty because i don't think we have the right to kill others. Lets remember that government is simply made up individuals. I don't believe one group of individuals can make the the decision to end another life, no matter how horrific the crime.
Not me dude I assume the right to kill to protect and if someone else has voluntarily given up their humanity by BEHAVING inhumanely. They need to die. Obviously I am pro death penalty.