twhiting9275

And a far more costly one.
Lifers get the same number of appeals as the death row individuals do, they just have them spread over time.
In addition, lifers get to be fed 3 meals a day, 365 days a year, for the rest of their life, while contributing nothing to society itself.
In addition, lifers get medical, laundry, essential necessities for free, for life, again, contributing nothing to society itself.
In addition, lifers get 'parole hearings' on regular basis.

ALL of this will add up, and inevitably cost more than the death penalty.


There is no 'more' legal fees, as I said above. Individuals have the same number of appeals available to them, but they are spread over a much larger period of time, as mentioned earlier. In fact, lifers can have MORE appeals, because they've got longer for new stuff to be uncovered.

Quick ways of freeing up rooms in overcrowded jails (and prisons):
STOP giving death row individuals years to appeal. One appeal, get it done and over with, and kill 'em.
Make the punishment fit the crime. If someone murdered someone, no mercy, give them the death sentence, instantly. If someone stole something from someone, leave them completely broke, homeless and hungry.
Think that won't teach people a lesson? It will, quite quickly. Once the 'no BS' attitude gets through, people will obviously stop testing the system.

No, they should be punished immediately, one appeal, give them 1 year to deal with it, and that's it. If they can't prove their innocence within that 1 year, beyond reasonable doubt, then they are executed.

Harsh? Perhaps, but the system is just being too 'nice' to individuals any more, granting unlimited appeals, unlimited parole hearings (required once a year), allowing them to basically live for free with cable TV (in places), libraries (in places), etc. Hey, these people are criminals. They're where they are for a reason, because they broke the law. It's not a vacation for them, but it seems to be treated as such.

Dakstang

Are you completely ignoring the facts released by the Department of Justice? This is not really up to debate. It has been proven that putting someone to death costs more than keeping them for life in prison.

Sorry, but that is not the way the system works in the U.S. Putting to death one innocent person would not be acceptable. And with several examples of innocent people being convicted in this country that is something that could easily happen. All options of appeals must be exhausted before someone is put to death. It will always be this way.

__________________

There'll be no sorrow there, no more burdens to bear,
No more sickness, no more pain, no more parting over there;
And forever I will be with the One who died for me,
What a day, glorious day that will be.

Suffy

I'd rather there be no death penalty but if you are going to do it you need to have plenty of appeals just in case, saving one innocent life is worth wasting all that money on 100000 killers.

__________________

Assassin™

The purpose of an appeal is not to prove innocence, it is only to object to some evidence presented in the original case, or to call a mistrial (something may have been obtained illegally, there may have been a conflict of interest somewhere in the adjudication process, etc). Obviously, the convicted murderer having already been convicted would serve as reasonable doubt of his innocence. Innocence is not something that the court system is set up to judge.

Huge difference between "innocent" and "not guilty".