Replies

feel free.

the groups responsible for the exhorbitant expenses involved are often the same ones arguing to abolish capitol punishment. IE: they want it both ways via the reality they've created.

I never understood why we can't execute someone who's not in good health AND they have to use a clean needle.

What would be wrong with 2 appeals or 5 years, whichever comes 1st?

And why not put non-citizens in the 'no waiting' line?

What would be wrong with 2 appeals or 5 years, whichever comes 1st?

Sometimes, there are more than two issues in a trial to appeal. If those issues aren't cleared up in 5 years, you're saying we should execute them anyway? Besides, even with this rule you are proposing, I still doubt that it would be cheaper to execute someone than to house them for their lives. Just a few years of lawyer costs (hell just one year with enough lawyers and judges) would far offset the costs of housing someone for life. Don't get me wrong - there are arguments for and against capital punishment that are valid, but I don't think the cost issue is one of them. If the government is going to execute people, it is imperative that they get it right and that will necessitate a lot of review and a lot of expensive work-hours for a lot of people - there's no way to do it on the cheap. We the people have decided that the cost is worth it, so we do it, but I don't think that anyone considering the cost issue alone would conclude that it's cheaper to execute someone.