You know, people say that, but I have yet to have anybody explain to me exactly how that works. The TRUE simple fact, is that once a murderer is executed, the cost of feeding him, clothing him, caring for him medically, and boarding him STOPS. So if you can, kindly explain to me the rationale of how keeping a killer in prison over the course of his natural life is cheaper than executing him. I would imagine that a billyclub in the hand of a prison guard making $6.00/hr would be a pretty powerful incentive to be constructive.
well, the way this is always explained is that the court costs of the endless appeals and general bureaucratic nonsense you have to do to kill a man is more than the cost of a lifetime of three hots and a cot.
Yeah, but a lot of that goes on with prisoners convicted of lesser crimes, too, just trying to get out or get a new trial. That stuff is going to happen, regardless of the nature of the offense. And with somebody sentenced to life in prison for murder, it goes on for as long as he's alive. So that explanation doesn't hold a lot of water.
It's hard to believe but from everything I've ever read it's true. Most of the extra cost is in trials and legal fees. This guy is obviously anti death penalty but it was the first site I hit that sited half decent sources for the numbers he quoted. http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
The difference is the mandatory appeals that comes along with a death penalty case. Other crimes don't have that luxury. Google "costs of death penalty versus LWOP" and you'll probably get more info than you really want to read, from both sides of this issue. I don't think anyone really knows which way is more expensive, it's just a position one takes to support their belief on this issue.
this is another thing that may or may not be true. everyone has an agenda, so it is hard to get real info on something like that. if it is true, and it might be, certainly they should just cut out some of the red tape and keep killing bad guys.
It is difficult to believe, especially when, as I said before, the appeals process goes on for all criminals, not just murderers. And when somebody is sentenced for life, the process goes on until he's either dead, or all the appeals are exhausted...THEN we're STILL left having to take care of him. In the face of statistics, I gues I'll have to concede the point. However, I my bottom line is simply this: regardless of the cost, why should ONE PENNY of my tax money go towards supporting somebody who has murdered in cold-blood? That killer is the person who has forced the situation...not the taxpayer. HE should have to face the consequences.
Interestingly, most death penalty advocates that I've known are also overzealous about locking people up for anything (especially the "War on Drugs.") Somehow, the cost of incarceration is OK to absorb to keep some people off the streets, but completely unpalatable when you can execute them (at greater expense, according to some, noted above.) Not trying to get the thread off topic, but they hypocrisy of many "tough on crime" people is laughable. And no, this isn't directed at any given individual here, unless you really support the war on drugs, and support the death penalty, with cost savings as a factor. Then, it is directed at you.
I know this is the common perception, but both capital and non-capital crimes only have so many appeals. Granted, capital crimes are allowed more appeals, to make sure you're not making a mistake when there's no going back after the execution. But, there are limits to just how many times they can appeal, it won't go on forever.
