Why do we continue the death penalty when it's costing taxpayers millions and doing nothing to deter crime?

The problem with the death penalty is there are too many appeals available. That drives cost.

Appeals should be structured in a way that expedites the process and safeguards against mistakes. Use of DNA evidence should be universally accepted.

Once it is clear the person is guilty, push the damn button.

As for deterrence, it can be safely said that no one actually subjected to the death penalty ever committed another crime...

Good question. There are other reasons to end the death penalty. I'm totally against it and not because of any sympathy for criminals. It’s not an effective way to prevent or reduce crime, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.

The system can make tragic and irreversible mistakes. In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas for starting the fire that killed his children. Modern forensics has shown that the fire was accidental. Willingham was innocent. There wasn’t even a crime.

Over 130 other wrongfully convicted people sentenced to death have been exonerated. DNA, rarely available in homicide cases, can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Apart from this, many people don't realize that in the majority of states where costs have been studied, the conclusion is that the biggest part of the costs is upfront, at the pre trial and trial stages. The legal process is extremely complex. To begin with, the process of choosing jurors is different from other kinds of trials (jurors must be "death qualified) and two two trials are required (one to gecide on guilt or innocence, the other the sentence.) Death penalty trials take much longer.

The value of the death penalty in keeping down violent crime is debatable. Homicide rates are consistently higher in states with the death penalty.

And life without parole, available in 49 states, means exactly what it says. The two main advantages: it costs less and there are recourses for someone who is innocent and wrongly convicted.

It doesn't do anything to deter the kinds of crime that would result in the death penalty because the people who get convicted know that there's a decent chance that they'll die of old age first, by the time all the appeals are exhausted.

It's an age old debate on the economics and actual result of death penalty. Why do we still do it? Because people keep fighting to keep it in our society. Why doesn't it deter crime? because its not public. Think of it, if we went back to the old days of public hangings and beheadings, and the public saw it, do you think there would be as much crime? Death penalty is so private and off limits to the general public now that it loses its power to deter criminals because they just simply cannot see the real consequences.

So the problem, as you have asserted here, isn't that the death penalty is immoral, but that it is expensive and ineffective?

Here's your reality check - criminals who are dead are not out and about committing crimes. I'd say that is a pretty effective deterrent. As for the expense factor, your argument only suggests that we need to make the death penalty less expensive rather than get rid of it. I agree that taxpayer society shouldn't be forced to pay for these people to continue to exist after these criminals have inflicted harm upon innocent citizens. That is why I am not in favour of anything OTHER than the death penalty. Anything less perpetuates the injustice of having a victimized society continue to be victimized.

Personally, I am somewhat skeptical of the motives of someone who seeks to protect rapists, murderers, and thieves over their victims.

Self gratification... Revenge.. A sense of justice.

I've always felt that life in prison is a far worse punishment than the death penalty. Plus, it's lengthy, filled with appeals, not a deterrent to crime, and innocent people have been put to death.

I think some crimes deserve the death penalty...not most, but a few. Usually crimes involving the torture or murder of a small child.

Honestly - I don't know why it has to cost millions to end a human life.

If we the taxpayers are paying millions, who is the one making the money off of the process? Hmm?

How much money does a lifetime sentance cost the taxpayers on average?

Sorry to answer your question with more questions. But it got me thinking, so thanks!

I would rather they rot in a 6 x 9 cell than be executed anyway.

With death penalty - 0% recidivism.

Without death penalty - more than 0% recidivism.

I prefer 0% recidivism.