jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (63 posts)

Death penalty

  1. richtwf profile image60
    richtwfposted 6 years ago

    Do you believe in the death penalty?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.
      We have to have justice for high crimes at some point, especially since it's so costly to keep prisons maintained.
      But I do think there can always be improvement in the system somehow, so that no innocent person gets executed.  I dunno exactly how that improvement aspect can come, but I see no reason why it can't.

    2. IntimatEvolution profile image83
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Dead set against it.big_smile HA!

      Seriously though I am.  Especially when it involves my hard earned tax dollars being used to fund murder.  By design that makes me guilty of murder too.  I don't like that none too much.  Actually, it really pisses me off.

      Now if they made the criminal pay for his own execution- I'd say go for it!!!!

      1. lrohner profile image85
        lrohnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ha! Now there's a take on it I haven't seen before! smile

        I am totally dead set against the death penalty. Although I agree in theory with Cagsil and Brenda, in reality we cannot always be sure that we are not executing someone that may be innocent. With the number of people on death row or serving out a life sentence that have been proved innocent, I don't think we should risk taking the life of someone who may not be guilty.

        1. IntimatEvolution profile image83
          IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah- mistakes do happen, but.............

          No it is ALL about the taxes for me.

          I mean- if I knew that I was to be on a jury deciding a death penalty case, I would be removed from the case come hell or high water.  I will not play God.  I would risk going to jail myself, before, I would ever condemn a person to die.  That's my own inner and personal feelings.  I am not capable of making big decisions like that.  That is why I live in America.  There are smarter people than me, to make those judgment calls.

          However, and I do mean this is a big way however, if the decision is to kill someone- do it in someone else's backyard, and by somebody else's means.  For the reasons why I couldn't judge the value of someone's life, is why I don't want my tax money to be funding a death execution either.  If I want someone dead, I'll do it myself.  Me.  I will take responsiblity.  But for someone to take my hard earn money, and use it by force to pay for murder, are you kidding me?  No.  I'm not for it.

          I thought as Americans we were free to live our lives on our terms.  I don't want to pay for murder.  I don't want one single penny of my money to go for it.  That goes against my morals.  I have a real problem with that as you all can tell.

          If someone wants this man dead- they should pay for it.  Or, if this person deserves to die, well then they deserve to pay for it don't they?  Paying for your own funereal is customary these days anyways.

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Hey IE, if your only complaint is about the money, please read my hub on it. At least you'll find it somewhat amusing. wink

            1. IntimatEvolution profile image83
              IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Will do big fella.smile

    3. puebloman profile image60
      pueblomanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No I believe that the death penalty degrades civilised people. It turns us all into murderers and defeats the purpose of justice, which is to preserve civilisation and civilised behaviour in the teeth of criminal behaviour. It gives a sort of victory to the criminal.

    4. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      GHi Rich: I wrote a "hub" on this one that might be interesting to you. I got many, many comments on it...lolol.

      http://hubpages.com/hub/qwark28

    5. mythbuster profile image86
      mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No, I don't

      It's not a deterrent to crime. The highest percentage of significant crimes are crimes of passion...where the perpetrator is in a state of mind where critical thinking is impaired... deterrents require long-term critical thinking, so being afraid of getting the death penalty requires that one can actually think in complex terms of action-results, consequences.

      Also, killing someone via death penalty to get them out of the jail system and essentially of the earth with civilized people is extremely costly, so it is actually less costly to put someone in jail for life rather than deal with court costs, death penalty implementation costs (team of officials, judges, doctors, executioner, the equipment, etc).

      Death penalty is a long-lived throwback from ancient times that people don't seem to be able to GET SETTLED out of their civilized minds...

      I supposed it's better than the ancient western-world public beheadings, hangings, mutilations...which actually have only been out of public view for less than 200 years...

      Those are the arguments against death penalty/capital punishment that don't really involve ethics...

      If you are required to think about ethics, there are more complicated issues to decide upon.

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        My hub solves most of your dilemma. lol

        1. mythbuster profile image86
          mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hub name?

          I will backtrack to see if it was already mentioned but I'm coming up blank - I will read the hub if it's on this topic.

          If what you're talking about is a more humane way of execution...

          I will look for the hub

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this
            1. mythbuster profile image86
              mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              ohyeah - THAT hub... I have read it before, Cags... but did not wish to comment at the time... I felt I needed to think a lot more before responding after I read it...

              I will re-read tho and respond on your hub....after I get some errands done lol and settle down.

    6. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Nope. Never have.

  2. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    In our world today. Yes, I do.

    I even wrote a hub on the best way to utilize it and why. Many people claim it isn't a deterrent for committing crimes, however, that is also explained.

    Too many people ignorantly believe we live in a civilized society/world, but when you actually look around, the truth sticks out like a sore thumb.

    Hence, my hub on it.

  3. Polly C profile image88
    Polly Cposted 6 years ago

    No, I don't.

  4. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 6 years ago

    Yes.  As Cagsil pointed out, these are not civilized times.  There are 2 legged animals out there that cannot be allowed in our society for the safety of that societies citizens.  No other country will taken them, either, and I find no reason to support them and their insanity for decades.  It is also more humane to simply end to torment for them.

  5. IntimatEvolution profile image83
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    Interesting view.

  6. anonimuzz profile image82
    anonimuzzposted 6 years ago

    You can kill whoever you want, that's not a big problem to me. I'm just concerned at the amount of people that actually watch those executions with pleasure. It looks like some circus, it's degrading, in my opinion. Aside from a couple of official witnesses to make sure that the execution was done, I don't think it should go to the public eye. Saddam Hussein's execution, broadcasted everywhere in the world, was pretty much ridiculous to me, despite everything the man did or at least was accused of doing.

    1. profile image0
      china manposted 6 years ago

      The death penalty is a really good idea - if the society that applies it is responsible, fair and just.  When the screaming radical moralists are a thing of the past with their phoney religious ideals then we might be able to apply such a drastic law justly.

      When the distortions in society are dimished with the rejection of all extreme religions such as Christianity and Islam we may be able to look properly at the value of one human life against another, the actual value of a human life to society.  It is not possible for a society to judge fairly when huge sections hold fundamental beliefs that are based in some element of higher thinking, but are applied by morons.

    2. poetvix profile image84
      poetvixposted 6 years ago

      To the best of my knowledge, the death penalty has never been proven to be a deterant to crime.  In our country, most people condemed to death await it for years and cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax payer money. I think the lag time between the sentence and the event detracts from the desired latent effect of detering other crimes by other people.

      Having read the prior comments, I do agree w/ a few statements.  First, the death penalty is murder and yes we are paying for it, like it or not.  Secondly, there are some "two legged animals" walking around in our country hurting and killing constantly.

      While I hate saying this, I'm going to anyway.  I do not think we should pay to house and provide proper medical care for violent sex offenders, serial killers and child molesters.  In all studies I have seen, outside the church, these people can not be rehabilitated and have the highest recidivism rates (sp).

      With all that said, we need to eliminate them from the gene pool.  We should not drag it out, pay for them, support them or anything else for them.  In the cases mentioned, in my opinion, the death penalty should be immediate once an appeal has happened which should also be a speedy affair.

      Lastly, I don't like war either, but I see that it too involves the killing of another.  If your child's life was at stake and you could save it by killing the person threatening your child right then and right there would you hesistate?  Now take what you just thought and think about the fact that the child molester, serial killer, or violent sex offender could come after someone you love.   
      Just some thoughts.

      1. JacquiD profile image61
        JacquiDposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Haha I like that you went to eliminating them from the gene pool!  I am very into logic and science, and to be honest that makes the most sense to me.  However, only a portion of these people are from chemical imbalances.  Some people get that way because it happened to them at some point, and effects them psychologically.  But can that be eliminated from the gene pool?

        1. poetvix profile image84
          poetvixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You make a good point.  You are right some people become that way because they have been treated that way.  But other people are treated that way and do not become abusive.  I think it boils down to choice.  Granted, it's way harder for some than others to refrain, but it's like alcholism I guess... might not be one's fault, but it is one's problem.  I have to stick w/ eliminate from the gene pool as harsh as it is.  It gives me no joy or pride to say it, but I do believe it.

    3. richtwf profile image60
      richtwfposted 6 years ago

      Personally I'm against the death penalty.

      I know that there maybe some evil monsters out there who have committed atrocious acts of inhumanity but I feel that to take their life as much they might deserve it for taking someone else's life is a real kop out. They should me made to live out a life sentence and to bear the burden of guilt and maybe in time they might genuinely acknowledge their sinful nature and atone for their sins in someway. Snuffing someone's else's life is the easy way out for such criminals.

      Depraved sexual acts against minors is an area where I think many would call for the death penalty. If someone raped my little girl and killed her then I might feel like killing him but would I? - that might make me feel better but it doesn't bring back my little girl, does it? I would only be lowering myself. I'd hope that I'd be strong enough to stand by my principles and say nope, I''l forgive you but I can't forget this and I hope one day you'll someday repent and atone for your  dreadful sins.

      Also how do we know for sure that the person up for the death penalty is really guilty. As some hubbers have already mentioned, some who were wrongly accused of crimes, have unfortunately suffered.

      1. profile image0
        china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think you will hope in vain for repentance and atonement, the only time this occurs in real life is when the @ssh@le is trying to get parole.

        The big issue is deciding what constitutes a crime that would attract the death penalty that everyone agrees with, Kid killers are probably the only crimeinals that evveryone would agree with - but what about the real big-time criminals like W Bush ?

        1. Joy56 profile image60
          Joy56posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          what about them indeed good question.  Are we talking slow agonizing death here?

          1. sofs profile image88
            sofsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            HI Joy , Bright new avatar!

            I don't  believe in  death penalty personally, some crimes especially against the those who cannot defend themselves like little kids need life imprisonment with never a chance of freedom.  But death...... no I don't think so...

    4. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago

      So serial killers and mass murderers get to sit in a nice cozy prison cell, get free clothes - get free food - have shelter from the elements and get free health care, for the rest of their life on the taxpayer's dime?

      Nice system you people want to keep in place, considering it has done a damn thing to change anything.

      You treat the criminals better than the homeless. How nice of you. hmm

      1. mythbuster profile image86
        mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You commit ad hominem, ploys of distraction here - at least 3 fallacies...

        Homeless people aren't related to incarcerated people (distraction)

        you use "homeless people should be treated better than criminals, therefore criminals should get the death penalty" (sorry, my re-wording in quotes, for clarity) as your basic argument (ad hominem)

        (more distraction) "Nice system you people want to keep in place, considering it has done a damn thing to change anything." (proper quote, your statement) You work with a shaky premise that is false, too...

        Premise: system is responsible for crime

        Criminals are responsible for crime, not people who keep a system you don't like into place. Enforcement of said system is not the issue here...

        Enforcement of death penalty also does not fix the wrongs in "the system" - crime is not perpetrated by wrongs or rights in the system... The legal system is one of the most USELESS systems ever designed to "manage human behavior" It only ever "reacts" to things that already have happened. It's still HUMAN BEINGS who cause all this crime stuff...

        The best thing that can be done with people who do NOT value others and who behave in dangerous ways - is to lock them up, try to rehabilitate them and keep them away from people who are NOT misbehaving.

        All this energy directed toward fights "for" the executions is a waste of energy - since fear of capital punishment is not a deterrent for more of the serious crimes of passion that people commit and then are incarcerated for.

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It is only an example of how people are treated.
          No, that's not the intention, but that is how you read into it.
          I left out a word, which changed the meaning of the sentence....considering it has NOT done a damn thing. Sorry for the typo.
          The system? I was talking about the way of thinking....next time I shall clarify.
          Actually, enforcement of the system, such as the death penalty is part of the problem.
          Really, I would have never guessed, but since the world we live in isn't actually filled with civilized and responsible people, then the "system" is required.
          That works only for specific criminals, not all.
          And, I didn't say that it should be used on every criminal.

          1. mythbuster profile image86
            mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for all the clarifications, Cagsil...

            I will keep in mind your clarifications and think about this awhile...

            Maybe, in part, I hold strong beliefs because I've studied on this issue and have done several public and small group debates on the topic - from both sides of the issue... I've never won on the "pro-capital punishment" side but have been absolutely creamed by the arguments against capital punishment - from ethical standpoints and every angle.

            I've had to do research for my debates, to prepare and I've never come across ANY pro-death penalty stats which support death penalty as an actual deterrent for crime, a cheaper way to deal with criminals, or most of the things people THINK capital punishment is good for...

            The main STRONG POINT I scored a ton of points with in my last debate when I was on the Pro-death penalty side - is very frightening... I scored HUGE points but this was my best and almost my ONLY VALID argument (even when I was on a "team" this is the best 2-4 heads could come up with):

            "Capital Punishment is Cathartic for a general public and MAY helps them feel like they can have closure about a crime/criminal." In other words...a general public needs to abate their fears and experience catharsis and closure - so these short term rewards make capital punishment "a good" in society lol

            (it doesn't actually last long-term - the catharsis - and it doesn't solve ANY of the issues that the crime or punishment causes. it doesn't solve problems for the victims of the criminal/crime, either - so it's really a short-lived, temporary, insignificant band-aid - incredibly expensive bandaid, too lol not your regular J&J lol)

        2. Jim Hunter profile image62
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "capital punishment is not a deterrent for more of the serious crimes of passion that people commit and then are incarcerated for."

          You can say it all day everyday and it still wont be true.

          Capital punishment is a deterrent to capital crimes.

          Common sense tells you that it is, all punishment is a deterrent to crime.

          If it weren't we would have a hell of a lot more of it.

          1. profile image0
            china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            This would appear to be true - but Every study from every angle says otherwise.

            If punishment was actually a deterrent to crime then how come you have millions of people locked up in the US and the number grows larger every year ?

    5. Daniel Carter profile image90
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

      I want to be against it. But when I hear the stories of the atrocities which have been committed by some people, and the suffering of the victims and their families, I think execution is getting off easy for some. WW2 death camps are just a slight example. Hunting down the murderers and butchers of WW2 and putting them to death is a far more humane and better thing to do them than they did to others.

    6. Joe Badtoe profile image60
      Joe Badtoeposted 6 years ago

      Sorr, but if you are for the Death Penalty you have absolutely no soul.

      Irrespective of how horrific a crime may be the State has to be seen as objective,above such barbarism and set a moral example to its citizens.

      It has been proven that the State has executued innocent people which means it has committed murder and I wonder if you pro death people give a toss about the 'mistakes'and how the bereaved families of those 'mistakes' feel given your coldness towards this savage solution.

      What is wrong with you people?

      Brenada Durham you are possibly one of the most ..........No, I'll bite my lip on this one as you'll onl run off to Admin. It's probably easier if I just ignore your extreme posts from now on.

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You lost your mind....I suggest you go find it.

        1. Joe Badtoe profile image60
          Joe Badtoeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          On the contrary I'd rather have a lost mind and not be part of a murder campaign sponsored by the State and people like you.

          The insanity belongs to your argument because you clearly think it's ok if an innocent person is killed by the State as long as a few guilty people get killed.

          You must be very proud of yourself.

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You're one of those people who like to twist the argument to an "innocent" person getting executed.

            Nice try. Only a fool would think that an innocent person would be executed. Especially, considering the method in place to prevent it from happening.

            And, it's not a murder campaign. Get it straight...we do not live in a civilized society, which apparently you think we do.

            1. Joe Badtoe profile image60
              Joe Badtoeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Really?? Innocent people have been executed so what bit of this didn't you understand. When the crime of murder is committed it means someone has been unlawfully killed which is exactly the same as the State unlawfully killing an innocent person. There are cases of people being killed by the State who were mentally unfit to stand trial but I guess that's ok with you too eh?

              So apart from your snide remarks and empty rhetoric what exactly is our point. Or are you obsessed with the attention you so clearly crave?

              1. poetvix profile image84
                poetvixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Ok... you make a valid point about some innocent people have been put to death, but many more guilty have never even been caught.

                You say in the case of the innocent being put to death the state committed murder and perhaps you are right, however, what about war?  Are you telling me that many, many more innocent people have not died in wars at the hands of the "state"?  Perhaps you don't esp. like war.  I don't either, but at some points it becomes needed. 

                You mention people who are mentally not competent to stand trial.  I agree this is very sad, but, what about the noncompetent person who keeps raping, keeps killing... He/she must be stopped.  You may reply lock them up for life.  Alone?  I don't know of too many prisons built for one.  While everyone there may be a criminal I think we can all agree the young man busted for possession of weed who could not get a decent lawyer does not deserve to be terroriezed by the person many would rather see "locked away for life" than put to death by the "murdering state".

                I do not say any of this to be confrontational.  My comments are just some thoughts for I feel if we are going to honestly debate this then all eventualities must be covered.

      2. mythbuster profile image86
        mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for biting your lip!

        Really...

        1. Joe Badtoe profile image60
          Joe Badtoeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Was it you that reported me?

          Be honest

          1. mythbuster profile image86
            mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Reported you for what?

            No I have never reported you - I have rarely even seen your username or addressed you in forums.

            1. Joe Badtoe profile image60
              Joe Badtoeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              ok my apologies

              1. mythbuster profile image86
                mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                NP Joe Badtoe

                Usually I send an email to a person, first, if I am thinking of reporting them...just to ask if the posts in question are really necessary - and have always had a good response by doing this.

                So far... lol

    7. wildorangeflower profile image56
      wildorangeflowerposted 6 years ago

      No, simply because we make errors in judgment at times. And justice can be bought with the best lawyers. People commit crimes even though they know there is death penalty.

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's because of the method in which the "death" penalty is handed down. That's what needs to change, not not using. wink

    8. mythbuster profile image86
      mythbusterposted 6 years ago

      The consequences for the execution teams who have ended up executed someone who actually turned out to be innocent of the crimes is ASTOUNDING, usually permanent psychological damage to most members of the team...

      and it does happen OFTEN that court systems, the law, etc make mistakes and incarcerate innocent people...

      Really - death penalty is NOT necessary - and it's never necessary to commit an act that cannot be reversed, so if a mistake is made, people who have been incarcerated by mistake of some sort can at least remain ALIVE while court systems, legal systems at least attempt to repay damages...

      Kind of hard to receive settlement of anything if you've been executed by mistake.  MOSTLY BECAUSE the feelings of revenge and feelings of a general public and officials alike about ACCOUNTABILITY range into such drastic forms as killing people to "make them pay for crime." These feelings, desires to see someone made accountable with the most extreme punishment are IRRATIONAL - they're feelings, anger, hate, fear... but they govern certain portions of our legal system and also the public...

      There's nothing rational in subjecting anyone to punishment so extreme that it ends life. No justice is served by this...

      We have gotten Justice mixed up with REVENGE

    9. Jim Hunter profile image62
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

      The argument that capital punishment is not a deterrent to committing a murder or other capital crimes is a bit ridiculous.

      How do you know that its not working?

    10. mythbuster profile image86
      mythbusterposted 6 years ago

      It is only an example of how people are treated.
       

      It influences the argument... very covert.

      Good lawyer tactic - unfortunately, not ethical lol

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol lol

    11. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
      SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago

      ...today I believe in it!

    12. Joe Badtoe profile image60
      Joe Badtoeposted 6 years ago

      According to Amnesty International 23 innocent people were executed in the US btween 1990-1995

      Is that acceptable to you folk who are pro capital punishment?

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That only shows how F**ked up the judicial system actually. Thank you for pointing it out. Not to mention, Amnesty International isn't the most credible source on the planet. Again, nice try.

        1. Joe Badtoe profile image60
          Joe Badtoeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Amnesty international is renowned for its thoroughness when illustrating cases of justice.

          Your glib generalisation of such a respected charity does you and your argument no favours. There is no judicial system that is 100% absolute which means mistakes will be made and innocent people will be put to death. This fact seems to escape you and it appears easier for you to pretend that such miscarriages of justice don't actually exist than to admite it occurs.

          why is that?

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Your problem is in your argument. As I said before, READ MY HUB on the topic, I'm not going to get into this pathetic pissing match with you.

            You use a lame argument to justify an even more pathetic position. You want to know where exactly I stand on the topic, then follow the link I provided.

            Your ridiculous appeal for morality of an innocent person, is completely irrelevant to HOW the death penalty should BE USED.

            1. Joe Badtoe profile image60
              Joe Badtoeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Lameness appears to be your speciality. You're still hangng on to your smugness and self righteous responses.

              You lost my respect for an intelligent debate with your ridiculous views on the death penalty and your one eyed view of Amnesty.

              Morality is something for the State to set an example of to its populus and my point was that by killing innocent people you are sponsoring murder. You still don't get that do you? Is that because it strips away your weak defence? I give you a fact that over 20 innocent (you know people not guilty of the crime) people have been executed in the US between 1990-1995 and I give you the credible source of that info. You're response?

              'Amnesty isn't a credible organisation'

              This is an organisation whose campaigns have changed laws, exposed murder and political corruption around the world. This is an organisation that has managed to free thousands of prisoners who were jailed simply for their opposing political views. 

              You get funnier by the post

        2. profile image0
          china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Amnesty International is the only credible source on the planet.  It has no political axe to grind and can be vocal because it's members are all over the world.  Don't be fooled by the shit the US media tries to stick on it from time to time because it also strongly criticises the US.

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And who finances it? Enough said.

            1. Joe Badtoe profile image60
              Joe Badtoeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              oh FFS! I mean seriously, if you're going to contribute at least quote the odd source if only to rescue the emptiness of your argument.

              So please tell me who actually does fund Amnesty International?

              Is cut and run after leaving a generalisation your way of appearing intelligent?

              It's not working.

    13. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 6 years ago

      Read my Hub: "Televised Executions," http://hubpages.com/hub/qwark28
      and join my tailgate party!

    14. IntimatEvolution profile image83
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

      Here is something for folks to read.
      Here is a real good example with factual information, that you might enjoy reading. 

      "The death penalty costs much more. Why is this so?
      The extra costs have very little to do with the costs of the actual execution, but rather with the legal costs. I have listed sources below.

      Pre trial costs are much greater because, once a suspect is caught, the prosecutor must investigate the mental health history of the suspect himself. If the prosecutor decides to seek the death penalty, the trial will have two separate phases, one to decide guilt, one to decide the penalty. The process of choosing jurors(they must be “death qualified) is much more complicated in death penalty cases. Many more pre-trial motions are filed by both sides and have to be answered. Prosecution teams use more lawyers, and where the money is available, by the defense as well. Death penalty cases take much longer to try. It is only at this point that appeals begin and the costs escalate. It is also important to note that the overwhelming number of cases where the death penalty is not on the table end in plea bargains.

      Here is a specific example: In New York State, the average annual cost to incarcerate someone not on death row is about $35,000 per year. On the other hand, in the years since 1995, when New York State brought back a death penalty law, 7 people were sentenced to death, none had more than one appeal and 3 had not even had their first appeal. New York shelled out well over $200,000,000 for its capital punishment system since 1995. Assuming each of the 7 men lives for 40 years the cost to incarcerate all of them for life would be under 10 million dollars.

      By the way, life without parole is now available in 48 states. It means what it says, is sure and swift (requirements for a punishment to deter others) and is rarely appealed.

      One of the answers you have received is wrong about deterrence. Homicide rates are higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it."-Susan S.

      Source(s):
      Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, reports on costs, and number of executions by state and region.

     
    working