Well on one hand I can understand many people pursuing it because of the horrible atrocities the criminal has committed. On the other hand the cost to put these criminals through this process is so much. Along with the fact that many get imprisoned despite not doing the crime. So essentially i'm on the fence with this question, if there is 100% irrefutable proof that this person has done the crime. With a couple years later a wait to make sure that you got the right guy. Then I wouldn't too strongly be against that if the criminal got the death penalty but that's just how I see it.
I see both sides of the argument. Especially since numerous people are put on death row despite being innocent. However, for example (since someone else mentioned it), if you're someone like the Boston bomber or the Sandy Hook shooter and you've performed a mass public shooting killing innocent kids and adults, I think death should be considered.
"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.
Quote:
A new study of the cost of the death penalty in Colorado revealed that capital proceedings require six times more days in court and take much longer to resolve than life-without-parole (LWOP) cases.
In Australia it costs more to put someone in Jail and I don't want my taxes to go towards filthy scum in prison when it can go towards public goods such as schools, parks, hospitals, roads etc.
I'm for it, if the punishment fits the crime and the suspect is guilty way beyond a reasonable doubt.
but why? why give them the freedom of death instead a life long sentence in jail? why not save exponentially on tax money while making a person actually suffer? it's just makes no sense to me.
we're talking about instances of murder, or in the case of the boston bombings, terrorism. not theft.
life in prison cases, not 6 month deals.
Ok...
You're acting as if people don't commit heinous crimes in prison.
Either way prison is still a waste.
You lock these people up but that doesn't stop them from causing physical harm to others.
I mean you have inmates who literally rape and torture other inmates.
So by locking them up what does that really solve ?
In Australia it costs more to put someone in Jail and I don't want my taxes to go towards filthy scum in prison when it can go towards public goods such as schools, parks, hospitals, roads etc.
Australia doesn't have the death penalty though so they have no choice with the cost.
I think it's barbaric and gives criminals an easy way out. I'd rather die than be in prison 20+ years.
You can say it saves taxpayer dollars but it's used so sparingly that it barely makes an effect and there will always be people in jail using the money.
I just cannot respect anyone who supports the death penalty.
No arguments stand up behind it. Just makes me think you don't think logically or thoroughly about issues.
With time it will be completely wiped from the developed world. Kind of shameful if the law still allows it.
Yes, their are arguments for it. Your ignorance towards people with different opinions is apparent and you should allow people to state their opinion without talking down to them, its rude.
People talk about this being an inhumane way to deal with criminals, but, as I said, if somebody has done a terrible act such as the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook shooting, Aurora shooting, etc., I don't really care if they're treated humanely. I'm sorry, that's just the way I see it. We all have our own opinions.
we're talking about instances of murder, or in the case of the boston bombings, terrorism. not theft.
hanging people is not cheap?? pushing people off a clip is not cheap??
