Death Penalty, is it right or wrong? Options

[inn0centmarianne]

No.

No man has the right to take the life of another.

I think so too. but sometimes it gets too much what if they get let out, and do it again. then again, they could be just sentenced to life, which sounds better than actually taking a life right?

[*NatiMarie*]

^^ I agree.
The death penalty sucks. I don't know...=\

[islandkiss]

yes! some criminals deserve it..

instant music//quote
no.

no man has the right to take the life of another.

^ what if the criminal was facing the death penalty for killing someone?

[*NatiMarie*]

^ Good point. But I mean, the death penalty is just a fair punishment...easy one. Like, what's worse, dying instantly or suffering in a cell for the rest of your life (hehe...that didn't sound too good)
=P

[EmeraldKnight]

Who revived this thread?

Meh.. I've said all I wanted to in the first few pages... I dont feel like repeating myself..

Personally I'm undecided on this one.. but I can argue either way

[Mireh]

yes! some criminals deserve it..

instant music//quote
no.

no man has the right to take the life of another.

^ what if the criminal was facing the death penalty for killing someone?

would it be right to kill some one that killed some one?

do two wrongs really make a right?

[Spirited Away]

^ Good point. But I mean, the death penalty is just a fair punishment...easy one. Like, what's worse, dying instantly or suffering in a cell for the rest of your life (hehe...that didn't sound too good)
=P

While they're suffering, our tax money is paying for their food and even cable TV.

[Sumiaki]

would it be right to kill some one that killed some one?

do two wrongs really make a right?

I agree, its like a murderer being punished for killing someone with the death penalty. It's like saying to the killer "No one has the right to take human life. But we're going to have to take your life." Like if someone hits you and you hit him/her back, it doesn't matter who started it, you still hit him/her. Plus what do you do if someone was wrongfully accused but served the death penalty? Revive them back?

[*NatiMarie*]

While they're suffering, our tax money is paying for their food and even cable TV.

The death penalty also costs a lot of money. =\
Closing death row would save state $90 million a year.
We don't see that trials for death penalty are longer, meaning more money.


EDIT//
OH yeah, death penalty, in fact, is more expensive than life imprisonment.

[Spirited Away]

The death penalty also costs a lot of money. =\
Closing death row would save state $90 million a year.
We don't see that trials for death penalty are longer, meaning more money.


EDIT//
OH yeah, death penalty, in fact, is more expensive than life imprisonment.

Eh, I rather use my money to prevent deaths of innocents, then to help entertain murders/rapists/thieves.

[*NatiMarie*]

Eh, I rather use my money to prevent deaths of innocents, then to help entertain murders/rapists/thieves.

I don't really care how my money is being used, I just don't a lot of it to be used on expensive trials and such. Well let's think about it...they say that the death penalty reduces crimes because it brings fear or whatever (Pro), but in fact...there are other proven ways that are used in some states, that have reduces crimes, other than using the death penalty.

It's still a lot of money though for the death penalty. I wouldn't want my money to be part of a taxpayer's $2.3 million dollars for the death penalty. That's about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.

Being in a cell really isn't entertaining...who would want to be confined in a cell for their whole life?

[Spirited Away]

I don't really care how my money is being used, I just don't a lot of it to be used on expensive trials and such. Well let's think about it...they say that the death penalty reduces crimes because it brings fear or whatever (Pro), but in fact...there are other proven ways that are used in some states, that have reduces crimes, other than using the death penalty.

Hmm, well then lets bring on the statistics... well, since it's your arguement, go ahead and give me some to ponder over.

It's still a lot of money though for the death penalty. I wouldn't want my money to be part of a taxpayer's $2.3 million dollars for the death penalty. That's about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.

I'm too spaced out to argue, so I'll let others to do it for me:

John Manning:
One argument against the death penalty is that it costs less to imprison someone for life than to execute them (Death Penalty Discussion). This is a good point that has a lot of impact on a lot of people's views regarding capital punishment since they are the ones footing the bill through taxes. I personally would not mind paying the little bit extra just so I know for sure that there's one less murderer on our planet. If the death penalty was done away with, prisoners who should have been executed will be mixed in with other inmates. It would be possible and not too unlikely for them to kill another inmate or possibly a prison guard.

This one tells you how much we can save...

Abel Martinez:
How does the economy benefit from the death penalty? First of all, the American economy has enough problems as it is. The government is trying to cut spending left and right. State and Federal prisons are overcrowded. What do these prisons have to do with the American economy? American tax money is used to support hard core criminals like murderers, rapists, etc. that are serving their sentence.
At the end of 1992 State and Federal prisons reached a record high of 883,593 prisoners. This record means that approximately 1,143 prison bed spaces are needed per week due to overcrowding. To put this in an economic prospective, on the average each prisoner cost $22,000 per year, and the cost of new construction averages almost $54,000 per bed (AAE "Prison"). The 883,593 prisoners are costing the American taxpayers approximately $19.4 billion plus another $61.7 million for the construction of the 1,143 spaces needed. Why should we, the tax payers/the victims, support these criminals? It's true that not all the prisoners are hard core, but in 1992, 2,575 prisoners -- all murderers -- were sentenced to death (BJS 5-93). 31 (one female) of the 2,575 (36 female) murderers had been executed during 1992. This is the largest number of people executed for any year since 1976 (BJS 12-92). By executing these murders, the American tax money could be used for something more useful. Thus the economy benefits from the death penalty. Plus, it helps lower the prison population by the number executed.

The average time a death row prisoner has to spend in jail until the death sentence is carried out is about nine years and six months (BJS 12-92). It's more economical to keep them in prison for those nine years and execute them, rather than give let them spend their life in jail, taking up space and tax money. Those who argue that it's more expensive to execute a prisoner don't look at the overall picture. Suppose the Amount A equals the amount of money to support one prisoner per year ($22,000) and Amount B equals the cost of the execution (negligible). We are talking about paying Amount A times the nine years spent in jail plus Amount B for the execution plus the cost for new construction during the nine years (total is approx. $690,000), as opposed to paying Amount A times an average of 60 years the prisoner would spend in jail plus the cost of new construction during an average of 60 years (total is approx. $4,560,000). Even if the prisoner spent 20 years in prison the cost would be approx. $1,520,000.

Jana Wofford:
Two reasons why the death penalty should be enforced are saved time, by the court system through limited appeals, and saved money, by taxpayers due to reduced court and imprisonment fees. Much of the court's time could be saved if death row inmates were limited to a set number of appeals in a reasonable amount of time. Facilitating numerous appeals results in many unforeseen costs. In 1992, expenditures on criminal justice activities by all federal, state, and local governments combined reached $299 per capita.(BJS) Ted Bundy's 10 year stay on death row, involving numerous appeals and excessive imprisonment fees, eventually cost the Florida state taxpayers more than $6 million dollars.(Lamar 34) These expenses are unnecessary and unjustifiable and could be alleviated by limiting appeals. In addition to this, public defense expenditures reached a startling $16.4 billion in 1990, which breaks down to about $7 per capita for each case tried in public defense costs alone.(Capital Punishment 1992) Although these figures are for total spending on public defense, it is easy to deduce that by limiting the number of appeals for death row inmates, these figures could be significantly reduced.

Okay, the above are opinions and facts provided by other people. Those are not my words... So if you're confused or maybe disagree with some facts, let me know and I'll just.... um provide the source!




Being in a cell really isn't entertaining...who would want to be confined in a cell for their whole life?

[redsoxbaby87]

for...but they should keep them in prision for atleast 10 years beforehand to make sure that they in fact commited it.

[*NatiMarie*]

Hmm, well then lets bring on the statistics... well, since it's your arguement, go ahead and give me some to ponder over.




I'm too spaced out to argue, so I'll let others to do it for me:



This one tells you how much we can save...




Okay, the above are opinions and facts provided by other people. Those are not my words... So if you're confused or maybe disagree with some facts, let me know and I'll just.... um provide the source!

Whoa, a lot of stuff. I'm kind of lazy to argue too, but it's so weird because here I found information contradicting that info. Who knows what's true and what's not?

*shrugs*

Death penalty cases are much more expensive than other criminal cases and cost more than imprisonment for life with no possibility of parole. In California, capital trials are six times more costly than other murder trials.(1) A study in Kansas indicated that a capital trial costs $116,700 more than an ordinary murder trial.(2) Complex pre-trial motions, lengthy jury selections, and expenses for expert witnesses are all likely to add to the costs in death penalty cases. The irreversibility of the death sentence requires courts to follow heightened due process in the preparation and course of the trial. The separate sentencing phase of the trial can take even longer than the guilt or innocence phase of the trial. And defendants are much more likely to insist on a trial when they are facing a possible death sentence. After conviction, there are constitutionally mandated appeals which involve both prosecution and defense costs.

Most of these costs occur in every case for which capital punishment is sought, regardless of the outcome. Thus, the true cost of the death penalty includes all the added expenses of the "unsuccessful" trials in which the death penalty is sought but not achieved. Moreover, if a defendant is convicted but not given the death sentence, the state will still incur the costs of life imprisonment, in addition to the increased trial expenses.

For the states which employ the death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.(3) In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million.(4) In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment.(5) The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually

There's more...but it's too long

[Spirited Away]

Whoa, a lot of stuff. I'm kind of lazy to argue too, but it's so weird because here I found information contradicting that info. Who knows what's true and what's not?

*scratches head*... oh well...

I'm still for it.

[*NatiMarie*]

*scratches head*... oh well...

I'm still for it.

Hehe...*takes stand* I guess I'm against it. Bleah, I suck at debates. =P

[floofies]

I'm against it. In my opinion, I think that if someone has comitted a serious crime then they should have to suffer in jail for what they have done and have a shit life. I think that getting a death penalty is just an easy way out. They should suffer

[EmeraldKnight]

There are realli two ways to look at it;

One way is from a moral standpoint, and morally, I dont believe that the death penalty should be necessary; like people have said, two wrongs dont make a right and they should have to suffer in jail, etc..

The second way is from a practical standpoint, I wont say justice, because people have different views on the word; anyways, it would be more practical to simply kill them because
a. being human beings with vengeance as an innate component, in most cases, the families of the victims would like to see justice in their terms, a life for a life
b. its far less expensive, our tax dollars would go to keeping the criminal alive in jail.. likely for the rest of his/her life.. that's a lot of money whereas killing them would be sufficiently cheaper

Anyways, those are my two cents..

[*NatiMarie*]

There are realli two ways to look at it;

One way is from a moral standpoint, and morally, I dont believe that the death penalty should be necessary; like people have said, two wrongs dont make a right and they should have to suffer in jail, etc..

The second way is from a practical standpoint, I wont say justice, because people have different views on the word; anyways, it would be more practical to simply kill them because
a. being human beings with vengeance as an innate component, in most cases, the families of the victims would like to see justice in their terms, a life for a life
b. its far less expensive, our tax dollars would go to keeping the criminal alive in jail.. likely for the rest of his/her life.. that's a lot of money whereas killing them would be sufficiently cheaper

Anyways, those are my two cents..

I understand the first moral standpoint which is correct, but you see, you're wrong about me. It's not far less expensive.

You see, we don't know it but the death penalty costs more money.

Here's a quote I found:

...a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.(3) In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million.(4) In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment.(5) The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually.

[EmeraldKnight]

...a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.(3) In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million.(4) In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment.(5) The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually.

So? Your point? Have you evidence that life in prison would be cheaper? Oh and might I ask where you obtained your data?

[Spirited Away]

Psssss:

The death penalty is not cheaper justice than life in prison. Many states have compared the costs, and found that keeping prisoners on death row is far more expensive than putting them away for life...

Why is capital punishment so much more expensive? To make sure that innocent people aren't executed, capital cases are given a lengthy appeals process.

SOURCE

[EmeraldKnight]

I disagree with the article..

Perhaps individually, the death penalty may not be cheaper, but when you factor in the maintaining and perhaps building more prisons as more convicts are sentenced to life (instead of the death penalty), its going to rack up..

And besides, the way human nature works, I think people would be more satisfied having their tax dollars being used towards keeping a convicted murderer off the streets for good rather than pay to keep them alive (and with TV and all that..) and run the chance of escape

[sadolakced acid]

the death penatly deters first time murderer.

but you know what they say.

you only hang once.

if someone knows thier going to die if they get caught, they'll put up a hell of a fight.

[Spirited Away]

Forget the death penalty and life sentence, I'll eat them all!

Erm, okay to topic:

I disagree with the article..

I only agreed to the part that if it is true the Death Penalty is more expensive, then it is only because we spend more money to make sure innocents aren't put on death row.

[EmeraldKnight]

Forget the death penalty and life sentence, I'll eat them all!

That would be a very good deterrant, wouldnt you agree SA?

I only agreed to the part that if it is true the Death Penalty is more expensive, then it is only because we spend more money to make sure innocents aren't put on death row.

Or, we would simply abolish it completely, which should not be done