The death penalty has provoked heated discussion since biblical times, and today the debate remains as controversial as ever. Is such a sentence ever justified? Capital punishment is an intensely emotional topic for everyone involved because it sits at the intersection of life, death and the very definition of the word 'justice.'
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
No country that has abolished the death penalty (Canada, Mexico, Europe, many others) has eliminated life in jail as a consequence. This argument is not based in fact, but speculation.
- PrometheusUnborn August 2, 2008 4:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Mexico has abolished Life without parole and the Mexican Supreme Court has held that persons facing LWOP should NOT be extradited back to the United States.
Many honest death penalty foes will admit that if they are successful in abolishing the death penalty the next target is LWOP. This debate is already very active as it relates to murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes.
- Josh Marquis
February 15, 2009 10:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The lobbying consequence of abolishing the death penalty should not affect the decision on whether the death penalty itself is a good idea. If life-without-parole cannot withstand scrutiny or indeed does not meet the needs of the public then we are doing a dis-service by keeping it in place simply because the lobbyists are too busy with the death penalty.
While I agree that justice shouldn't have a price tag the reality is that it does. I have no qualm with the death penalty per-se but given the realities of our judicial system I do not support it. It is unlikely to be used but a "death penalty agreement" clause would be desirable where the defendant could request death instead of life-without-parole.
- polobo August 30, 2008 7:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
8
10
7
5
8
3
3
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
The Death Penalty Costs More
- From Amnesty
By Amnesty International - Working to Protect Human Rights
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Death Penalty
I'm glancing at the associated costs and it seems to me that the reason why the Death Penalty costs more is because of the degree of thoroughness. The process is all together more committed to finding the truth so the problem isn't the death penalty, it's that putting someone away for life without parole is easier. Which it shouldn't be as they are effectively the same sentence. The person's life has ended and they are permanently removed from society.
Another question would be why more people have been found innocent on Death Row than Lifers? Is it simply that they don't get the appeals and attention? How is that just?
- Sean Renaud July 17, 2008 11:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Stabbing is free.
The death penalty only costs more because opponents have made sure that it does. How much is one bullet? The proper comparison is the cost of the actual penalty, not the cost of the trials, because justice should be the same either way - guilty is guilty. It's ridiculous to say that keeping a murderer imprisoned for 60 years costs less than simply executing him on day one.
- Freeman
July 24, 2008 1:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Slipping in an additional rebuttal weakens this objection
I was interested in seeing factual evidence on the cost of non-death penalty cases being similar to capital cases, since I find the financial cost—average of $1M is the amount I once heard—to be one of the more convincing arguments against DP. It's disappointing that this evidence wasn't presented. In fact, this line of objection was cut abruptly short in favor of the 'slippery slope' argument about they're-coming-after-life-without-parole-next. WTF? I felt that this was a far weaker objection, and that the sudden switching of tacks got what could have been a strong point lost in the shuffle.
- wintersmith July 27, 2008 6:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Costs of non-death penalty murder cases
I can only speak from direct experience from the State of Oregon where I both defended and more recently have prosecuted both capital and non capital aggravated murder cases. The process is the same; two separate trials. The amount of work done by defense experts is usually the same and defendants spend similar amounts of time appealing the verdicts and penalty (this is where the overwhelming part of the cost comes in).
But as I said above I would hope we would never make the decision to execute someone simply because it costs less or abandon justice because it costs too much money. Due process is expensive, and it should be.
- Josh Marquis
February 15, 2009 10:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.