Death Penalty

Thanks LegalizedProstitute.I will be providing four reasons why the Death Penalty should not be a punishment.PriceThough the actual cost of the act of killing the criminal is relatively cheap, the processes leading up to that moment are extremely expensive, 1.25 million dollars more expensive than it is to have a life without parole case[1]. Perhaps some of you are asking if life without parole will eventually end up costing more than the death penalty due to the fact that inmates have to be housed and cared for the rest of their lives. This is not the case however, evidenced by the amount of money states save overall by imposing or not imposing the death penalty. Take California for example. Currently, conservative estimates place expenditures to be 137 million dollars per year(with death penalty)[1]. Estimates place California's expenditures at 11.5 million dollars in a legal system without the death penalty[1]. If California got rid of the death penalty, they could save a billion dollars in five years[1]. These statistics show that money is not saved over time with the death penalty, as if the death penalty were some sort of investment. DeterrenceThe experts of the criminal, and the criminal mind, criminologists, should have the first word in this question. And nearly 90% of criminologists have seen no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime[2]. Two Quotes:Tomislav Kovandzic, PhD:"Our results provide no empirical support for the argument that the existence or application of the death penalty deters prospective offenders from committing homicide... Although policymakers and the public can continue to base support for use of the death penalty on retribution, religion, or other justifications, defending its use based solely on its deterrent effect is contrary to the evidence presented here. At a minimum, policymakers should refrain from justifying its use by claiming that it is a deterrent to homicide and should consider less costly, more effective ways of addressing crime."[2]Jeffery A. Fagan, PhD:"Recent studies claiming that executions reduce crime... fall apart under close scrutiny. These new studies are fraught with numerous technical and conceptual errors: inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, failures to consider all the relevant factors that drive crime rates, missing data on key variables in key states, the tyranny of a few outlier states and years, weak to non-existent tests of concurrent effects of incarceration, statistical confounding of murder rates with death sentences, failure to consider the general performance of the criminal justice system... and the absence of any direct test of deterrence.These studies fail to reach the demanding standards of social science to make such strong claims... Social scientists have failed to replicate several of these studies, and in some cases have produced contradictory results with the same data, suggesting that the original findings are unstable, unreliable and perhaps inaccurate. This evidence, together with some simple examples and contrasts... suggest that there is little evidence that the death penalty deters crime."[2]Getting the Wrong GuyDespite the lengthy legal process involved in a death penalty case, there is still the possibility that an innocent man is being sent to his death. Since 1973, 130 people have been exonerated from death row[3], which for them is good, but what does that say about the system? If we had to 'take it back' for 130 people, how many does the system mess up on, and not realize their mistake? And thanks to the fact that no satisfactory evidence has been brought forward to show lives are saved with the death penalty, we can assuredly decide that the death penalty should be abolished because they could kill the wrong guy. A Moral ArgumentThe following is my view, which I shall try to convert you to, if you don't like my opinions on this subject, then at least look at the statistical facts I have presented. I believe that is the height of arrogance to decide that somebody deserves to die. To kill someone solely because you think they deserve it is passing judgment on someone from a completely subjective perspective. The only time you should decide to kill is when it produces a better result that the act of killing. Instead of passing a character assessment, you should only evaluate the benefit for others around you if you killed a person. That is why I am opposed to the death penalty: it has not shown itself to save life, which leaves it as a tool of 'he deserves to die'. That's my moral argument, you don't need to wholly subscribe to it in order to agree with the rest of my arguments.Thanks for reading.Sources:[1] http://www.deathpenalty.org...[2] http://deathpenalty.procon.org...[3] http://www.amnestyusa.org...