4 ms·

Put deterrence aside for a moment. Let's talk about the cost of keeping guilty murderers alive in prison for the remainder of their lives. Is it worth it?

orkaa 10y ago
You're pushing into a direction you might not like. Should we start executing people that aren't positively contributing to the society (disabled, sick..)? I think the decision between life and death shouldn't be made based on cost.
smeyer 10y ago
Are you talking about the financial cost? Due to the extra precautions around death row (including things like a more extensive appeals process and more security), it costs more to keep someone on death row and then execute them than it does to keep them in prison for life without parole. I'm not saying that this is the argument to use for abolishing the death penalty, but it's definitely not one for keeping it as it currently stands.
generalk 10y ago
> Is [keeping "guilty murderers alive in prison"] worth it? In many cases, guilt is not certain, only proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Lifetime imprisonment can be reversed if a mistake is realized, but death can't. Even given a hypothetical case where the evidence is so damning and guilt is fairly concrete, the execution of another human should be a punishment reserved for when we have no other option.
tbcj 10y ago
The cost wouldn't be substantially more than it is today if only because capital murder trials are rare occurrences these days, and its even rarer when the death penalty is given. Death row inmates stay on death row for a long time, so while its not effectively a life sentence, the state still has to keep them alive.
TelmoMenezes 10y ago
The progress of civilization towards an increasingly better society requires cost and effort. Either you consider human life a fundamental value, or you do not. There are no final answers in this mysterious, apparently indifferent universe, but there is a lot of empirical data. Over and over, cultures that place a high value on human life lead to the societies where the most people prefer to live. Another issue is that an old religious superstition survives even among atheists/agnostics, because it is disguised as a philosophical concept. This superstition is called "free will". Some people are born with problematic brains, others are raised in environments where they never have the chance to develop a healthy mind. Does society have to protect itself from these people? Absolutely. Do we want to live in a society that decides to kill them because it is more economically effective? I don't. Yet another issue is that of certainty. It is never possible to be 100% certain that someone is guilty. Even if they confess, even if there is video evidence. There is always a tiny probability that there is something fundamental that we are missing. A culture that place a very high value on human life will not be willing to take this chance. Consider also that, in the EU, not only is there no death penalty but not even life sentences. Typically, the harshest sentence you can get is 20-something years, no matter how terrible your crime. And yet, there is less violent crime in the EU than in the US. EU countries spend much less resources in keeping people incarcerated than the US. Why do you think that is?
- majewsky 10y ago
  > This superstition is called "free will". Some people are born with problematic brains, others are raised in environments where they never have the chance to develop a healthy mind. How can you know that what you're saying is not a superstition itself?
  - TelmoMenezes 10y ago
    Because I have never seen a coherent definition of what "free will" is supposed to mean, let alone how to empirically test for its existence. What is this "will" free from? The workings of the brain? If that is the case, then we are talking about the supernatural. If not, then we know that the brain develops according to genetic instructions and the environment, and we also know that both these things can go wrong by no fault of the person.

orkaa 10y ago

You're pushing into a direction you might not like. Should we start executing people that aren't positively contributing to the society (disabled, sick..)? I think the decision between life and death shouldn't be made based on cost.

smeyer 10y ago

Are you talking about the financial cost? Due to the extra precautions around death row (including things like a more extensive appeals process and more security), it costs more to keep someone on death row and then execute them than it does to keep them in prison for life without parole. I'm not saying that this is the argument to use for abolishing the death penalty, but it's definitely not one for keeping it as it currently stands.

generalk 10y ago

> Is [keeping "guilty murderers alive in prison"] worth it? In many cases, guilt is not certain, only proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Lifetime imprisonment can be reversed if a mistake is realized, but death can't. Even given a hypothetical case where the evidence is so damning and guilt is fairly concrete, the execution of another human should be a punishment reserved for when we have no other option.

tbcj 10y ago

The cost wouldn't be substantially more than it is today if only because capital murder trials are rare occurrences these days, and its even rarer when the death penalty is given. Death row inmates stay on death row for a long time, so while its not effectively a life sentence, the state still has to keep them alive.

TelmoMenezes 10y ago

The progress of civilization towards an increasingly better society requires cost and effort. Either you consider human life a fundamental value, or you do not. There are no final answers in this mysterious, apparently indifferent universe, but there is a lot of empirical data. Over and over, cultures that place a high value on human life lead to the societies where the most people prefer to live. Another issue is that an old religious superstition survives even among atheists/agnostics, because it is disguised as a philosophical concept. This superstition is called "free will". Some people are born with problematic brains, others are raised in environments where they never have the chance to develop a healthy mind. Does society have to protect itself from these people? Absolutely. Do we want to live in a society that decides to kill them because it is more economically effective? I don't. Yet another issue is that of certainty. It is never possible to be 100% certain that someone is guilty. Even if they confess, even if there is video evidence. There is always a tiny probability that there is something fundamental that we are missing. A culture that place a very high value on human life will not be willing to take this chance. Consider also that, in the EU, not only is there no death penalty but not even life sentences. Typically, the harshest sentence you can get is 20-something years, no matter how terrible your crime. And yet, there is less violent crime in the EU than in the US. EU countries spend much less resources in keeping people incarcerated than the US. Why do you think that is?

majewsky 10y ago
> This superstition is called "free will". Some people are born with problematic brains, others are raised in environments where they never have the chance to develop a healthy mind. How can you know that what you're saying is not a superstition itself?
- TelmoMenezes 10y ago
  Because I have never seen a coherent definition of what "free will" is supposed to mean, let alone how to empirically test for its existence. What is this "will" free from? The workings of the brain? If that is the case, then we are talking about the supernatural. If not, then we know that the brain develops according to genetic instructions and the environment, and we also know that both these things can go wrong by no fault of the person.