If the Death Penalty doesn’t have a profit motive, and is so obviously barbaric, why do political groups and people in America still rally behind it? Surely there’s more to it than most Americans just being blood thirsty monsters, right?
If the Death Penalty doesn’t have a profit motive, and is so obviously barbaric, why do political groups and people in America still rally behind it? Surely there’s more to it than most Americans just being blood thirsty monsters, right?
Yes, but people are granted additional recourse to appeal when they’re sentenced to death, and the total costs end up being more than life in prison.
This is the part where the bloodthirsty monsters respond, “Well, bullets are cheap, just shoot them.”
I don’t see how life in prison is more just than death. Not everyone is a bloodthirty monster for having a different perspective than you.
So your argument for how the death penalty being more expensive , from what youve told me, is that people facing the death penalty are given MORE legal representation than someone charged of the same crime without the death penalty. That doesn’t give me confidence in your goal.
The death penalty is more expensive, innocent people are executed all the time, and there’s also a heavy racial bias in who is subjected to it.
You don’t have confidence in my goal? I don’t have confidence in yours.
Bruv the goal is telling you the plain fact that it costs a dramatically greater amount of money for the state to murder someone than to put them in a cage indefinitely. What is your goal?
And life in prison isn’t more just. Nothing the American carceral system does is justice. But if you’re alive then at least it gives you time to prove that the cops who fingered you were lying about everything and try to get a new trial. Though even that doesn’t work sometimes thanks to our august and venerable supreme court.
Give us your actual views instead of this boring devil’s advocate shtick. Have some courage.
My actual views are exactly what I said. I think arguing that a person charged with the death penalty is more expensive only because of the court case that would still have to happen without the death penalty existing is a non-argument.
If you think we can be less thorough only because they’re facing legal slavery by the US government until they die, versus killing them outright, only to save money, you aren’t being realistic.
I understand the moral arguments and I understand why the death penalty is bad, but arguing that cost is a major factor is missing the mark. Its just logically no t true, unless you are fighting for LESS through court cases. And like people arrady said, innocents are killed on death row already. do you really want MORE PEOPLE given LESS representation? If not, then abolishing the death penalty WILL NOT save money.
Well see, that’s not exactly what you said. You’ve provided a ton of additional context that changes the way I’m going to approach this conflict. In fact, if your argument is simply that focusing on the financial incentives will just lead to lower quality of care for prisoners, that’s something I’d be willing to consider.