<p>"actually, the last time i checked a bullet costed $1."</p>
<p>omg! you're totally a genius! why hasn't anyone else thought of that??</p>
<p>oh, wait. maybe because you haven't factored in appeals court costs, time spent on death row, the cost of public defenders, and expenses from extensive investigations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
oh, wait. maybe because you haven't factored in appeals court costs, time spent on death row, the cost of public defenders, and expenses from extensive investigations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>oh wait, could it be that appeals court costs, public defenders, and investigations are not at all exclusive for death sentences????</p>
<p>i have no problem with the verdict process. but the execution process is simply idiotically protracted</p>
<p>those expenses are amplified tenfold when they concern a capital punishment case because the intensity of investigations increases and court costs progressively increase as well as more appeals are dealt with.</p>
<p>^^ and that supports your stance, how?</p>
<p>um, are you dense?</p>
<p>..just wondering.
all of what was stated above supports the idea that convicting death row inmates is much more costly than those facing life inprisonment.</p>
<p>i did a project on the death penalty....and its true, an execution actually costs more than jailing someone for life. scary huh? and no, i think that in most cases, they give lethal injections other than shooting.</p>
<p>it is also more expensive to maintain security guards at supermarkets than to just allow the occasional shoplifting. this is ok because it only involves petty theft. but if the matter could prevent potential murder or rape, you cannot say that just because the cost is greater, we're not gonna give them what they deserve. </p>
<p>and once again, those against the death penalty themselves are at least partially responsible for multiplying the cost of each execution by their "humanitarianism"</p>
<p>Bobert, if that is really how you feel ...why not just shoot them outside the court building? Why wait even a day...Seriously your logic is tragically flawed. I hope you never make a mistake (great or small) because in your world their is no forgiveness (or right to an appeal).</p>
<p>if you would closely read my posts, you would realize that i have absolutely no problem with reforming the verdict system and appeal system. however, once the verdict comes out that a criminal is guilty, execution should be timely and efficient. the verdict system is to be blamed for mistrials, NOT the executions themselves</p>
<p>and also, please note that you appealed to emotion and not logic in your post against my flawed logic</p>
<p>Well, of course you have to show compassion. That's what makes us humans. I've read about many cases where murder was justifiable.</p>
<p>Tell me what would be the point of reforming the appeals system if once the verdict is read the person is killed (the next day according to you)? Where is the logic in that? What you are suggesting is that there is no appeals process.</p>
<p>I am not one, but I will answer your question.</p>
<p>To them, killing a fetus is murder - cold-blooded murder of an innocent. Killing a convicted murderer, much like killing al-Zarqawi, is not murder of an innocent - it is morally justifiable.</p>
<p>I am pro-choice, and iffy on the DP. I used to be 100% anti DP, but Moussaoui and the guy in Georgia who raped, tortured, sodomized, murdered, and defiled the corpse of an innocent 13 year old girl have made me seriously rethink my stance on the death penalty.</p>
<p>in theory, a verdict should be final and correct. in real life this is not often the case, therefore there is the appeal process. what prolongs the execution? unnecessarily complicated legal system. i have advocated all along that the verdict and appeal system be reformed so more correct verdicts be made, and be made in a timely manner. </p>
<p>i appreciate it if you would stop twisting my words, and say that i want to kill all the suspects. no, i only want the CRIMINALS be PUNISHED in accordance to the level of their commited crimes.</p>
<p>What happened to the stance that "every life is sacred"?</p>
<p>that is always echoed...and yet no one ever says, "except criminals, terrorists, etc"</p>
<hr>
<p>I love how no one responded to that...couldnt answer it maybe?</p>
<p>I'll answer that. Don't get all self-righteous.</p>
<p>I'm conservative, and here's what I have to say to that - some lives are worth more than others. Terrorists, murderers, rapists, child molestors - these lives are not sacred.</p>
<p>basically the answer to the question is that democrats are absolute idiots run by a bunch of far left lunatics</p>
<p>Democrats are far from 'far-left'. Democrats aren't even liberal.</p>
<p>Democrats and Republicans are leftists.</p>
<p>Does Kansas have cheaper jails or what? I'd always thought it was $40K per year for a criminal, and no one disputed the annual $50K presented earlier. Yet Amnesty's website says, "Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000)." I would have to say that most of these cases that were allegedly comparable to death penalty cases would have to be life-sentence worthy crimes. How is the median cost so low for these?</p>
<p>It seems painfully obvious...capital punishment kills off a person who is found guilty of doing really terrible things, whereas the fetus is completely innocent. Why is it hard to grasp that the former has violated one or more of our most basic laws (e.g., don't kill an innocent person) while the latter IS an innocent entity? It would be hypocritical if both parties were equally innocent or equally guilty. But that isn't the case.</p>