Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Do you think it is cheaper to execute a convicted murderer or send them to the highest security prison for 40 years without parole?

Asking this question for a class. Please be specific.

Answer Question
 
YoungTwinMommy

Asked by YoungTwinMommy at 1:09 PM on Nov. 3, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 1 (0 Credits)
Answers (42)
  • I think it could be much cheaper to execute criminals if the correctional department and laws allowed it to be. A rope costs between 5-10 dollars and could be used more then once. A bullet cost about 5 dollars each.
    The trick it that they choose to house them for atleast 10-15 years before killing them. During that time they have to pay for health care, food, guards and everything else.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:16 PM on Nov. 3, 2009

  • Its much cheaper to execute them (providing its done in a timely manner) than feeding, clothing, caring for and housing them for 40+years.

    abbynzachsmommy

    Answer by abbynzachsmommy at 1:17 PM on Nov. 3, 2009

  • Hasnt' there been a study on this?


     http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/statsbrief/cost.html


    http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html


    These two sites show the cost of incarceration vs execution.

    jesse123456

    Answer by jesse123456 at 1:25 PM on Nov. 3, 2009

  • It may be cheaper to kill them, but that doesn't make it right - - What they did was WRONG, and to do the same to them as punishment is hypocritical. Keep them off the streets and behind bars so they can't hurt more innocent people.
    TiffanyMarie80

    Answer by TiffanyMarie80 at 1:27 PM on Nov. 3, 2009

  • Actually the cost of forty years is cheaper. Only because of the amount of appeals that have to take place. It cost the state of California two billion in legal fees alone to execute 11 criminals. Keep in mind you are still paying for them to live and be clothed and all that while the appeals run their course.
    lovinangels

    Answer by lovinangels at 1:29 PM on Nov. 3, 2009

  • I'm thinking that based strictly off the cost of food and lodge vs. the cost of injection (that is the method they use, right???) then obviously the injection would be cheaper. This of course would NOT include costly legal fee's to appeal any court decision for the death penalty, etc.

    However, ethically, I don't think a decision should be based on the price it will cost the public to keep said criminal off the street.
    ethans_momma06

    Answer by ethans_momma06 at 1:35 PM on Nov. 3, 2009

  • It is much cheaper to execute them of course, but do you know why they don't? because there are appeals after appeals, delaying that. There are also those few that are accused injustly and you wouldn't want to put a man/woman to death for being acussed of something they didn't do, many times they don't get fair representation in court, etc, there are a lot of factors to consider when it comes to taking a life.
    older

    Answer by older at 1:48 PM on Nov. 3, 2009

  • It is more expensive to execute someone. The cost of the trial is much more. They have automatic appeals which are necessary since there have been so many wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. The security for death row is much greater so it costs more than to dump a person with life and no parole in the general population. It is way more expensive and we cannot just murder then right away. There have been men on death row for nearly 20 years who have been strapped in to die a few times who were proven to be in fact innocent. So we have to have all those measures so we are not killing innocent people. Sadly, we have probably killed innocent men and women and we will never know. They destroy the evidence after the excecution many times so no one can prove they have.

    States that have the death penalty and actively use it have higher murder rates. So it is not all that effective.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:54 PM on Nov. 3, 2009

  • It is much cheaper to execute someone, but the comparative cost REALLY must not be a factor. ... It really should not even be part of the consideration of such an issue.

    "Cost to society" is COMPLETELY subscribing to the collective mind-set ... English socialism like in George Orwell's book 1984 ...

    If we start to give this argument a hearing, then respect for the individual is out the window.

    IF cost is given a high priority, then isn't it even cheaper to not bother with a trial at all ... just execute anyone who is accused of anything and have done with it.

    This attitude is rampant in any progressive program.
    waldorfmom

    Answer by waldorfmom at 1:55 PM on Nov. 3, 2009

  • This is always a trick question. From a correctional facility standpoint, execution is cheaper. From an overall view, it costs more due solely to the appeals process. If a criminal does not appeal, death is cheaper. But also, life is only cheaper if the criminal spends that next 40 years being good. If they continue to commit crimes while in prison (rape, assault, drug dealing, murder) and are caught to be tried for them, they can be just as expensive, if not more so, than the death row inmate who is kept in constant isolation. Consider how many inmates are gang members and have constant ties and access to members on the outside - the can go on to be repeat offenders for years after they go to prison.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:59 PM on Nov. 3, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN