• Huh? I would think keeping them jailed would cost more.
  • no they can cut money elsewhere. It takes more money to keep them in prison for the rest of their life than it does to kill them when you look at everything: food, healthcare, (considering all of it), education some of them THINK they are entitled to, etc. Add to that the fact that for every prisoner in jail another prisoner either has to be let loose early or more jails must be built which is more tax payer money So no..sorry I think EVERY state should enact a capital punishment like Texas..and do it quickly..none of this waiting for 20 years crap.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      I read a study once that it actually costs MORE to execute someone, just because of all of the automatic appeals that are put in place. But, I agree with you. Guilty verdict? Bailiff, take him out back and finish it, please.
  • Not before we execute all the bankers that have given themselves millions of dollars in bonuses from the bailout money they got in exchange for crashing the world economy
  • They are approaching it from the wrong angle. They need to shorten the time on death row to cut costs. For instance, if death row was limited to one year and then you had to be pardoned or executed the costs would only be a fraction of what they are now.
  • Fact from fiction, truth from diction. It should not be totally abolished but applied more even handed. Don't let mobsters with multiple bodies on their hands walk after 10 years because they turned State's evidence while you want to fry the guy who for whatever reason kills his dad or wife. We have to spend the money to make sure that the convicted person is trully no wiggle room larger than an ameba is truly guilty. As we have seen with advance forensics, many innocent people (some of death row) really didn't do what they were mistakenly said to have done. Once you kill someone you can't say "oops, made a mistake, lets hit the reset button". If they want to offset the cost instead of killing somone in the dead of night in secret you put it on Pay-per-View and charge to watch. Better yet, put 2 set to die in the ring for a match to the death. You can't tell me no one would view. Even if it cost $200 there will be viewers. To see a David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz and a Richard "Night Stalker" Ramirez fight to the death in a Medieval weapons cage match? The servers would crash. More people would tune in to see that than Michael Jackson'e memorial or the Olympics. The government might even MAKE money over just breaking even.
  • They need to streamiline it and end the ridiculous multiple appeals and go back to the 1950's where a person was on death row for generally a year or less. It was sometimes only months in the 1930's. With DNA and the advances we have made in crime detection it is ridiculous to have these endless appeals, You're guilty beyone a doubt, You die, quick! That would save money and prevent future problems with repeat offenders.
  • Not to save money but rather to not for the state to play God.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      The state isn't playing God. The legal system that MEN put into place is what passes the judgement. "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man."
    • Roaring
      I would be concerned about those wrongfully convicted and executed. Or the possibility of someone convicted being redeemed by time, not having that time.
  • "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen"

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy