Eh. I don’t really want to pay for people who torture others to death to hang around in a cage for a few more decades. Just needs to be done instantly and without room for error. And obviously only in completely open and shut cases where there is zero doubt the person committed the crime.
If cost is your concern, it’s cheaper to imprison someone than to pay for the courts and lawyers for the significantly longer legal process to execute someone, not to mention the execution itself.
If cost is your concern, it’s cheaper to imprison someone than to pay for the courts
I’m aware. Which is why I also believe the process needs to be changed. If the person tortured someone to death and the evidence proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt, then the execution should be swift and sure. No appeals. No waiting years on death row. That’ll bring the cost down.
There’s no valid reason why a swift execution following a trial and verdict should cost more than feeding, clothing, and housing someone for decades.
George stinny was a black boy who was accused of murder of a white person in the 1800s (I think) somewhere in the Deep South. He had an all white jury, a useless fucking lawyer and pretty much had everything stacked against him. He was just 14 when he was executed. In the last few years, he was exhonorated.
Anyway, my point is I wouldn’t trust ANY state with making sure someone is ACTUALLY guilty. If there is even a slight chance of someone innocent being executed, it should be abolished. It should be anyway as no one, outside of very few exceptions, like self defence, has the right to take someone else’s life.
Eh. I don’t really want to pay for people who torture others to death to hang around in a cage for a few more decades. Just needs to be done instantly and without room for error. And obviously only in completely open and shut cases where there is zero doubt the person committed the crime.
If cost is your concern, it’s cheaper to imprison someone than to pay for the courts and lawyers for the significantly longer legal process to execute someone, not to mention the execution itself.
Cost isn’t the real concern, vengeance is.
That’s not an argument against the death penalty in concept though - it could just as easily be taken as an argument for cheaper executions.
So expedite the process and eliminate the appeals process and make the whole thing an even bigger human rights atrocity?
The solution is to not kill people. This isn’t a hard concept for mentally healthy people without bloodlust.
I’m aware. Which is why I also believe the process needs to be changed. If the person tortured someone to death and the evidence proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt, then the execution should be swift and sure. No appeals. No waiting years on death row. That’ll bring the cost down.
There’s no valid reason why a swift execution following a trial and verdict should cost more than feeding, clothing, and housing someone for decades.
That’s a real big if. I don’t trust states like Texas or Mississippi with that power.
George stinny was a black boy who was accused of murder of a white person in the 1800s (I think) somewhere in the Deep South. He had an all white jury, a useless fucking lawyer and pretty much had everything stacked against him. He was just 14 when he was executed. In the last few years, he was exhonorated.
Anyway, my point is I wouldn’t trust ANY state with making sure someone is ACTUALLY guilty. If there is even a slight chance of someone innocent being executed, it should be abolished. It should be anyway as no one, outside of very few exceptions, like self defence, has the right to take someone else’s life.