[rubecube]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's a tired argument.

The lengthy and costly appeals process, as well as the other aspects of the system, involved in capital punishment cases typically costs taxpayers more than housing an inmate for life. A 2008 study found that Maryland executions have cost approximately $37mil each.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Then that's a flaw in the system and execution of the principle, not in the principle itself.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Saving money isn't what the justice system is set up for.

The guy is now dead. Is the country safer now than it was eight hours ago?

Yes? He has absolutely no way in which he can physically arm any living person now.

I'm not shedding any tears over here. If one of his victim's father had jumped out from behind a pillar at the courthouse and shot this guy in the head, I'd shrug my shoulders and say "well, there you go, that makes sense".

So then you'd be cool if the government looked the other way while this happened?

We laugh (or at least shake our heads) at the government. We call them corrupt and foolish as a matter of course. We don't trust them to clear snow off the streets or keep the trains running on time.

But when it comes to letting them kill a man on a gurney in front of a crowd of people in a state-run institution, everything is hunky-dory.

I don't get this. You'd feel better about it if the government contracted the killing out to a private institution or something?

Originally Posted by Thor

You live in a society, in that society there is a social contract. Where in those deemed dangerous are put away, we thus pay for criminals to be kept out of our society.

Now if you are under the illusion its cheaper to kill someone under a capital punishment system (ignoring the fact the error rate of innocents killed), its actually more expensive to kill a death row inmate because of the many appeals.

But yes, lets agree its about taxes

I disagree that my taxes should have to be put towards feeding, housing, and caring for convicted murderers. That's not the only reason I'm for the death penatly, but I do feel like a system that actively works to keep these animals alive by using public funds is wrong.

If some psycho kills my family and goes to jail for the rest of his life, he's guaranteed food, shelter, and medical care for the rest of his life - and the kicker is that I technically am paying for it. This doesn't even address the fact that I, as a contributing member of society, am not guaranteed any of these things for the next week, let alone the rest of my life. How is that justice?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Has anybody considered the fact that for a prisoner like this, prison life would be a living hell? He'd probably spend most of his life in solitary confinement and completely lose his mind. 23 hours a day in a little box with no human interaction.

Which is more of a punishment? Spending your life rotting away in a cell, or dying painlessly by means of lethal injection.

The Night Stalker got married a few years back. Charlie Manson sits in prison, watches TV, and answers letters all day. The death penalty is definitely more of a punishment.

Originally Posted by valo403

Thanks for that, I was unaware.

You're doing a fine job of not answering the question though. I'll break it down into parts if that helps.

Is it okay for someone to take a life?
Is it okay for the state to take a life?
If you're answer is different to those two questions, why?

Like I said previously, I've yet to hear an argument that isn't based in vengeance, and I'm sorry but a civilized society and legal system should not be based upon the premise of an eye for an eye.

So I can only assume you're against abortion and euthanasia, too?