Sometimes, murdering someone who is a serial killer, or who has raped countless women and/or children for example, decreases the overall number of people suffering.
It's obviously not a 100% accurate system, and yes it's barbaric but it solves the problem of having tax money spent on housing them in a maximum security prison.
I don't agree it should be used in all cases, and I absolutely believe every defendant should be granted a fair trial in every case regardless of the severity of the offence and of course trivial things like skin colour.
It should be used as a last resort, almost a deterrent, when all other sentences have been deemed too lenient for the crime committed, but I believe it should be legal.
As counterintuitive as it may sound, the death penalty costs more taxpayer money than a life sentence. The trial is more expensive, the appeals process is longer and more expensive, and death row inmates cost more to house than inmates sentenced to life without parole.
The trial is money out of the criminal's pocket (and the prosecutor), the appeals process is also out of the criminal's pocket (and the prosecutor), and the last statement makes no sense at all. Perhaps it just serves as an example of how awful our government is in some ways.
It’s more expensive per year, I don’t know if that adds up to costing more for the entire length of their stay since the average prisoner is on death row for 15-20 years before their execution but I bet it does. In California, for example, they were spending $85k per year on death row inmates compared to $45k per year on inmates sentenced to life in prison. And inmates were on death row for an average of 20 years before being executed...I can’t find a number on how long those sentenced to life without parole lived in jail, but it would have to be more than 37 years just to break even. Considering an inmate’s life expectancy drops two years for every year they spend in jail, I really doubt it’s that high. And that’s after the trial and appeals process, which is three times more expensive for death penalty cases. And only about 25% of those sentenced to death ended up actually being executed, the rest were either overturned/commuted or the prisoner died of natural causes first. So all that extra money was unnecessarily spent about 75% of the time. We’re talking billions of dollars that could be saved if every death penalty case was a life without parole case instead.
What is your stance on “Death Penalty”?
← View full post
Sometimes, murdering someone who is a serial killer, or who has raped countless women and/or children for example, decreases the overall number of people suffering.
It's obviously not a 100% accurate system, and yes it's barbaric but it solves the problem of having tax money spent on housing them in a maximum security prison.
I don't agree it should be used in all cases, and I absolutely believe every defendant should be granted a fair trial in every case regardless of the severity of the offence and of course trivial things like skin colour.
It should be used as a last resort, almost a deterrent, when all other sentences have been deemed too lenient for the crime committed, but I believe it should be legal.
--
candylady
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
TerriAngel
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
As counterintuitive as it may sound, the death penalty costs more taxpayer money than a life sentence. The trial is more expensive, the appeals process is longer and more expensive, and death row inmates cost more to house than inmates sentenced to life without parole.
--
Clunk42
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
EnglishLad
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The trial is money out of the criminal's pocket (and the prosecutor), the appeals process is also out of the criminal's pocket (and the prosecutor), and the last statement makes no sense at all. Perhaps it just serves as an example of how awful our government is in some ways.
--
candylady
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Most criminals don’t have pockets. They have public defenders, which are paid for by the government, aka taxpayers, just like the prosecution.
"Death row inmates cost more to house than inmates sentenced to life without parole"
Is that based on the entire length of their stay in prison? Or just per year?
--
candylady
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It’s more expensive per year, I don’t know if that adds up to costing more for the entire length of their stay since the average prisoner is on death row for 15-20 years before their execution but I bet it does. In California, for example, they were spending $85k per year on death row inmates compared to $45k per year on inmates sentenced to life in prison. And inmates were on death row for an average of 20 years before being executed...I can’t find a number on how long those sentenced to life without parole lived in jail, but it would have to be more than 37 years just to break even. Considering an inmate’s life expectancy drops two years for every year they spend in jail, I really doubt it’s that high. And that’s after the trial and appeals process, which is three times more expensive for death penalty cases. And only about 25% of those sentenced to death ended up actually being executed, the rest were either overturned/commuted or the prisoner died of natural causes first. So all that extra money was unnecessarily spent about 75% of the time. We’re talking billions of dollars that could be saved if every death penalty case was a life without parole case instead.
English.
well said.