Which is why I’m against the death penalty without even stressing over whether it’s moral or not - it’s hard enough to make it up to someone after they’re locked up for years or decades when you find exonerating proof. Even harder when you’re staring at their corpse saying “oops, our bad”
I agree with this sentiment, and just to add another reason: last I looked into it (debate for a class years and years ago) it's actually cheaper to incarcerate someone for life than pay for the chemical/medical cocktail of executing them.
Things may have changed since, but that was quite a shock to me when I was researching in the past
100% against in any circumstances, but just wanted to clarify, from everything I have read, it's not the chemical/medical cocktail specifically that is more expensive, more the legal processes and appeals associated with the death penalty.
Thank you, because this really can’t be stressed enough: despite what tough-on-crime people claim, the death penalty does not reduce the amount or severity of crimes committed. It isn’t a deterrent. So we’re executing people - and spending tons of our taxpayer money to do it and sometimes murdering innocent people in the process - but it provides no actual benefit to society.
Even worse, it actually can incentivize people to commit worse crimes. If you know there is a chance you will be given the death penalty for a crime, you will do anything in your power to cover it up including murder. Draconian punishment will turn an assault into a murder to avoid witnesses.
While I'm against the death penalty. Since when is it more expensive? That doesn't even make sense when you start adding in the cost of running the jail.
Where I live we keep having people being released multiple times for committing crimes dealing thousands of dollars worth of damage because the jail can't afford to hold them. The only way it's cheaper is if you're completely ignoring the cost of tying up a cell that can't be used for others committing non-violent crimes and the damages that are resulting from it as well.
Literally had a guy do 15k of damage then end up in the jail again the next day for assaulting a nurse at the hospital which wouldn't have happened if the jail wasn't having to catch and release everyone except the violent offenders.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a problem that would be completely solved even if the death penalty was in place. But there's no way it's more expensive than a life sentence before even adding in those extra considerations unless you completely ignore operational costs.
Because it’s the death penalty, we have to make sure we get it right and that they are truly deserving of it, so there’s a whole court process beforehand that typically goes into the millions for costs. It’s fairly cheap in comparison to just keep them in a cell and give necessities, which are mass produced cheaply
You say that like people with life sentences aren't making appeals all over the place as well. And running a jail is more than just the cost of food and daily necessities. So this still doesn't explain it.
The entire legal process is generally much more involved and lengthy for someone facing the death penalty than for someone facing life in prison, which balloons the costs.
Yeah, the death penalty is also expensive, costing taxpayers more than imprisoning someone for life (legal fees), so Death Penalty is also bad from a monetary standpoint.
Plus, for anyone crowing about “tHeY gEt To LiVe!?” Yeah, anyone who would be on death row is already getting life with no parole, possibly at a super max. The rest of their days are going to be fucking miserable.
I agree except for cases of mass murder. I live in Buffalo, NY. That piece of shit Payton Gendron livestreamed his attack and was caught in the act. He should be put to death without any chance of an appeals process.
I wouldn’t carve out any “except.” There are definitely people that I wouldn’t cry over them being executed, but the minute you start making exceptions someone wants to make another one for a case that is “good enough” and before long you’re back where you started, with innocent folks getting put to death.
The goal is the justice system is to remove criminals from society. Him living in prison for the rest of his days, honors that. I don't see why we should give someone the authority to commit murder just because it's a criminal on the receiving end. Imo it should be up to the criminal, life sentence or death, either way they are removed from society and cannot harm anymore
In 2013 an 8 year old boy, Gabriel Fernandez was murdered by his mother’s boyfriend after years of abuse and torture. His mother was sentenced to life in prison and the boyfriend was sentenced do death. You’re telling me he doesn’t deserve the death penalty?
In 1959 Darryl Beamish, a deaf and mute man, admitted to murdering a woman. He was sentenced to death, and his appeal ignored even after a serial killer admitted to it and gave details only the murderer could know. Were it not for execution being outlawed before his death he'd have been posthumously exonerated instead of still being alive. You're telling me he should have been executed?
Why does he deserve life? why pay taxes for him to sit in prison until he dies? He willingly tortured and murdered a defenseless child. Watch the documentary on the case if you feel so inclined and tell me why you think someone like that deserves to live.
People have admitted guilt just from police pressure and torture, there was this guy who admitted killing his dad because two cops said there was evidence of it and tortured for hours, and then the dad had to appear to clear his son, and the two cops? They were congratulated and promoted.
If I'm remembering this correctly, there was also a lady I believe in Texas who was convicted of and received the death penalty because she confessed to pushing her daughter down the stairs and she died. The sheriff department grilled her for like 2 days. It turns out that before her execution they found a neighbor or something that had a camera that clearly shows the little girl trip and the court wouldn't allow it to be used to appeal the decision because the grieving mother confessed to the crime. That's some seriously fucked up shit
John Oliver covered it a while back, I don't remember how long but I saw it on YouTube.
Yup, what people don't know is once you're convicted, even if lawyers find evidence of your innocence, the state can refuse to set a new trial or even admit it into evidence and can push forward to keep you locked up for life or executed.
Yup, that's my point. The US, for such a developed country, is still so far behind the rest of the modern world in so many ways and the persistence of the death penalty is one of them.
Oh! Sorry. I thought you were trying to say that “if they’re in prison, they’re guilty.” I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification. (Sometimes my brain forces things to fit into what I think was said earlier. I blame autism, but I don’t know if autism is actually to blame or if I’m just weird. lol)
I'm sure there's a database somewhere of people convicted on flawed 'concrete' evidence and coerced confessions. I'm just going to mention two I know of.
Cameron Willingham was executed in 2004 in Texas for setting a fire that killed his daughters. Later, a fire expert reviewed the 'concrete' evidence, and found the police's methodology completely flawed. The house had a specific heating system. The burn patterns the detectives used as proof were well known to occur in accidental fires caused by the heater. Unfortunately, the family was too poor to hire the expert in time to save Cameron.
However, Henry McCollum got lucky, and was exonerated after he confessed to raping and murdering an 11-year-old. There was no physical evidence. Henry was intellectually challenged, and after hours of interrogation, the cops told him that if he just signed the confession, he could go home. At the trial, the police and prosecution suppressed evidence. Justice Scalia even cited their case as a prime justification for the death penalty. Nearly 30 years later, an innocence project found the real killer using DNA. He lived in the same area as the girl and was a repeat offender.
The American judicial system is too flawed for me to support the death penalty.
“Concrete” evidence has later been overturned due to processing errors and mishaps of crime scenes or evidence, suspects lying, suspects being mistaken, cops needing to someone to prosecute for a high-profile crime, etc. Plenty of opportunity for error to look like fact when you’re dealing with corruption and/or ineptitude. Or just advancing technology - not that long ago there was an article out about how DNA evidence had led to a prosecution, but improved processes in later years made it evident that the original results had been erroneous. One of the more high-profile guys helped by the Innocence Project was clearly innocent but the cops needed someone to blame for a white lady’s death so they picked a black man and called him guilty. Evidence was “concrete” enough to that jury that they sent him to death row, except he didn’t have anything to do with the crime.
And of all the cases we know about where these sorts of things happened, there are certainly more that never came to light.
Or if the suspect admits guilt?
People here have given you some specific example, but it is widely known that people will confess to crimes they didn’t actually commit. Especially when under duress by the cops.
873
u/Stormfeathery 1d ago
Which is why I’m against the death penalty without even stressing over whether it’s moral or not - it’s hard enough to make it up to someone after they’re locked up for years or decades when you find exonerating proof. Even harder when you’re staring at their corpse saying “oops, our bad”