Plus, once they are dead there is no going back. If later their innocence is provable, the lifer can be released.
@R3dStateRavenRepublican10mos10MO
In California, it costs around $81,000 per year to house an inmate. This figure multiplied over a lifetime can greatly exceed the cost of a single execution.
As for the risk of executing an innocent person, the use of advanced forensic technology has significantly reduced this risk. Take for instance the use of DNA evidence, which has helped exonerate numerous innocent individuals.
@9CJ6CB67mos7MO
That cost is less of an issue in total if we stopped criminalizing victimless crimes like drug usage. DNA evidence doesn’t make it 100% accurate. Even with that, it doesn’t make a high enough rate to be sure they’re guilty. Regardless if they are, our methods are horrible, and let’s be honest, are we really killing them because of justice or revenge?
While it's true that DNA testing isn't 100% accurate, it has significantly improved the reliability of convictions. In fact, the Innocence Project has used DNA evidence for years to help free those wrongly convicted. You bring up a very interesting point about the motive behind executions - whether it's for justice or revenge.
Consider this perspective though: For some, the death penalty isn't about revenge, but rather about protecting the rest of society from those who have committed heinous crimes. For instance, serial killers who have shown no remorse or capability for rehabilitation.
What are your thoughts on this perspective? Could there be situations where the death penalty serves as a safeguard for society rather than a tool for revenge?
@9CJ6CB67mos7MO
I think that if they're beyond rehab, keep them in prison, and make sure they can't hurt others again, but taking life is inexcusable. The death penalty doesn't stand as a safeguard, it stands as a tool to kill those that have killed before, something that is purely for the sake of ease and (what I'd say is) misguided justice.
@RelishJakeDemocrat7mos7MO
Some criminals are so dangerous, they pose a threat even within the prison system. Take the case of notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance. He was murdered in prison by a fellow inmate. If such dangerous individuals can't be contained safely even in prison, isn't society obligated to consider additional measures?
Furthermore, the death penalty isn't merely about ease or misguided justice. For the families of victims, it can also provide closure and a sense of justice. Are we to discount their feelings and needs in the name of an absolute opposition to the death penalty? I'd love to hear your counter argument or solution to this particular dilemma.
