Thread: Am I missing something?

There's a report that shows lawmakers looking to ban the death penalty because it's far too costly. No; I'm not kidding! here

"We're looking at any way we can to save money moving forward in the state of Kansas," McGinn told FOXNews.com. "This will save significant money -- money that could be used toward education programs and toward community corrections programs," she said.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; but would you not save more money by executing a murderer sentenced to death, than you would feeding, educating, seeking community outreach programs for them.... I mean unless I'm seriously missing something here; we should be speeding up the process not eliminating.

I am, obviously, for capital punishment... just to clear up any uncertainty on the subject. If you kill someone while committing a crime, violate and then kill someone, or any other heinous way to do it; you should be put on the fast track program and put down.

I just don't get it!
Jeff

Who knows man- we are talking about Kansas here. I think we should just severely OD them on morphine. It'd be cheap and that's a hell of a relaxing way to go.

i here ya! it seems like it would cost more the feed them and pay people to watch them then to put them down. i must say that i am for capitol punishment, but obviously not for just anything, first degree murder only and i guess there would be some cases where it wouldn't be an automatic punishment. i remember reading an article about the Paul Bernardo case and thinking why did we get rid of the death penalty.

The high cost of the death penalty is the lenghty appeals process. And, in addition the those fees, the inmates on death row are also being "housed" for extended periods of time as well.

If there were a "fast track program" this wouldn't be an issue, but that's due process for ya.

And, let me say this without stating whether I am for or against the death penalty: prisons are called correctional facilities and their goal is supposed to be rehabilitation. That doesn't really jive with the notion of a death penalty.

He-he. The death penalty is the ultimate rehabilitation. Did you ever hear of a truly dead man committing a crime?

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

He-he. The death penalty is the ultimate rehabilitation. Did you ever hear of a truly dead man committing a crime?

That is an interesting way to look at it, Senor Exigente. I had not considered that definition of rehabilitation.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

He-he. The death penalty is the ultimate rehabilitation. Did you ever hear of a truly dead man committing a crime?

I'm with you! Think of all the money we could save, the prison space we could save.... and think of the message it would send to the criminal populous!

Now; don't get me wrong! I had a friend who was charged with a second degree murder. He served 4 years for it. Turned out that someone broke into his home and he unloaded his glock on the SOB. I still don't know the whole story but he said it was because he emptied his clip in the dude and that's why he got the conviction. He got into the military and they don't generally take convictions, so, I believe it.

Originally Posted by jmueller8

Think of all the money we could save, the prison space we could save....

But that's the issue; having a death penalty doesn't save money, and I don't think it saves much prison space either.

I think the solution of saving the money would be speed up the lengthy process and eliminate all the expensive legal mumbo jumbo. Give one appeal just in case of a mistake then to the gallows.

bj

Another important thing to think about is the high number of people sentenced to death who are later proved to be innocent. Here is a report (http://www.prisons.net/onehundredinnocentmen.htm) from 2002 that talks about the fact that 100 people were released from death row after having been proven innocent in the 29 years before 2002.