AMD, I'd have to point out the death IS severe enough punishment, they do not re-offend again.
As a deterrent, apparently not.
Agreed. The purpose of death penalty is to stop those who deserved to be taken away from this life and to stop them from committing their atrocities again, not to inflect vengeance on them. That's what my brain says. My heart does say they deserve more sometimes tho, to be honest.
It's important to note too that those offenders are the ones who called the penalty upon themselves, not that others hunted them with it for fun.
How come? You could just make inmates work for free.
I agree with WD. More inmates require more guards. The reason is that the gained free service/benefit gotten from the inmates will be defeated by the salary given to the guards to work and monitor them. Given money to the guards could at some point be even more.
I however agree with you if those inmates haven't done a crime severe enough to deserve the death penalty to stop them for good. Then it would be the right way.
It's not like the death penalty takes thousands of prisoners... Maybe 10, 20 a year? An average of 2 per state?
The thing is, those criminals are the ones bringing death penalty to themselves, not that it takes them. Raping a child and kill them afterwards is like telling to give death penalty in my book. It's only fair and logical to give it to those who ask for it.
It is within their grasp (the criminals) to make it zero a year but do they care? They know their crimes are punishable by death.
The US are getting too soft so we have problems. The prisons are more like a damn country club and us tax payers are paying for the prisoners' benefits. That has to stop and quit pampering the damn convicts.
The prisoners are working in house on very reduced wages so there's that. Also the lifers should be given death penalties instead. They say it cost more to execute prisoners than it is to support them for life.
I find that odd. It only cost 50 cents to put a bullet in their head.
My 2 cents is that those who deserve death should be put to death and those who don't deserve it, deserve to be taken care of with tax money until they serve their sentence. I don't mean pampered, I mean rehabbed.
The reason I'm saying this is because (1) they don't deserve death, and (2) they are members of the society just like us, who made a mistake, and everyone makes mistakes. Taking care of them and rehabbing them would inflect good on the whole society, the society we live in and get affected by its good and bad.
As for death penalty costs, ours has been criticized heavily by human rights and its followers. It's a lightening fast hit to the neck with an extra ordinarily sharp sword that cuts everything from the back of the neck to the ground in a split second delivering no pain at all or at worst cases a bug sting. My take is that it would look barbaric and inhumane but is it really? I think the way it is performed is what gives it a bad reputation compared to other execution methods.
Again, please don't hate. This method is created to deliver the most painless death, not to degrade humans. I think it's also cheaper than a bullet to the head.
Disclaimer: I hate death penalty and all kinds of punishments. I basically just believe in the saying that roughly translates to "you may hate something while it's good for you (in general, not you as in you personally) and you may like something while it is bad for you".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you guys think of animal slaughter?
