+31

The argument against the use of capital punishment shouldn't be focussed on immorality. It makes more sense to consider its monetary and societal cost. Implementing the death penalty is a substantially more costly process than life imprisonment. Goverment funds would have more use if diverted into education, police force, mental health treatment, drug and alcohol rehab programs etc. This may be why states in the US who have abolished it have lower crime rates in comparison to those who use it.

65%Agree35%Disagree
Crumpet_noses avatar Law
Share
0 16

I agree with your point, but I don't think the immorality of killing someone is something to just skip over.

@personThingy I agree with your point, but I don't think the immorality of killing someone is something to just skip over.

But then you remember, they aren't being sentenced to death for a parking ticket. They also killed one or more people, and the state considers the immorality of that...which they agree the punishment for should be death

@eastcoast Though that's a good point, I don't believe in the whole "an eye for an eye" ideology.

I don't necessarily think it's an "eye for an eye" thing. At least to me, it's dealing with the waste. If a human being clearly demonstrated that they are unable to be rehabilitated and will never be a functioning asset to society, why should we keep them? It's far more cruel to keep them alive in confinement until they die, and is realistically more costly. In practice, the death penalty is more costly, but I think that''s more a sign of our Judicial system needing to get its shit together.

@personThingy I agree with your point, but I don't think the immorality of killing someone is something to just skip over.

I completely agree. I just think there is too much importance placed on the morality of the decision. With the judicial system as it is, my point was more about trying to decrease crime rates. The death penalty doesn't appear to be a deterrent to commit heinous crimes.

The only reason its so expensive to use the death penalty is because of all the Appeal trials that they are having before hand. If you simply limit the trials, it'd cost less for executions.

So you're saying its more expensive to kill someone than to feed them 3 course meals and provide a roof over their heads for the rest of their life?

@AxeMan So you're saying its more expensive to kill someone than to feed them 3 course meals and provide a roof over their...

It is. If you've ever dealt with a lawyer, or any other participant in the legal system, you know they don't come cheap. And to sentence someone to death involves numerous court cases and appeals, costing the government hundreds of thousands of dollars in just a few months. And then there are the costs of the act itself which are also pretty high

You do need to consider the morality of such a serious issue. Why would you want to be governed by people who care more about cost and practicality than the morality of their actions? That's a dangerous road to go down, in my opinion.

@foryoublue You do need to consider the morality of such a serious issue. Why would you want to be governed by people who care...

I agree that morality is always going to play a part in execution, and rightfully so. My point was that we need to look at the bigger picture than whether or not it is justified to execute someone. I think it would be more logical to utilise goverment funds on trying to reduce crime rates, rather than wasting it on the death sentence. A reduction in crime rates would be of benefit to society as a result of the abolishment of the death penalty, would it not?

The death penalty isn't a deterrent to commit murder. I used the example that US states that don't have the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates than those that do, which is seen here:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...r-murder-rates

That just means that we're implementing the death penalty incorrectly. If everyone wasn't so concerned about the well-being of the person we're trying to kill, it would be much cheaper.

I don't know where you got information that says that states that abolished it have lower crime rates...everything I've read says that the murder rates compared between states with and without capital punishment are almost always higher in states that don't have it. It may be a possibility that the states you're referring to had lower crime rates before abolishing capital punishment so they would already have lower rates than states with it

The point of the justice system is to deem what's right and wrong. If we impose the death penalty upon someone we prove that we are no better than they are. Considering the death penalty is doing similar to the thing they are receiving the death penalty for; it, in a sense, throws the justice system out the window.

Anonymous -1Reply

How is killing someone more expensive than life in prison?

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.