No, kill 'em. Killing them costs more? These tards are appealing these things continuously anyway and you are paying for those lawyers, meals etc as they spend their entire time behind bars appealing / filing this / filing that / getting uni degree this / degree that. Even without a DP. No, I do not believe it "saves" money giving them LWOP.
You don't see in the context of this debate how arguing for *reducing* the appeals process for those sentenced to die is problematic? Even the current system allows for wrongful convictions. One need only look at the U.S. for ample precedent of men sentenced to die and later exonerated. Granted, most of those cases are somewhat dated and the exonerations have been because of evidentiary techniques now available at the initial investigation and trial- but errors are still made. I'm not arguing here that someone sentenced for a capital crime should get a paid education behind bard, or should be given vocational training. But to deny appeal that any other criminal gets? Utterly unconscionable.
A person who we decide the state will kill on our behalf in a judicial setting must get
every opportunity to try to demonstrate their evidence. How the hell can it be otherwise? You. Can't. Take. Back. Execution. If there are points of law to be argued, evidence to be disputed- then it must be! In ANY case, never mind when a person's life is at stake! The small number of such cases makes the cost of such appeals a pittance in the grand scheme- and what dollar value are *you* going to place on determining whether we will execute a criminal or murder an innocent man? *Who* would you make throw that switch on someone who it turns out later has not done a crime because you consider it
burdensome to allow them every opportunity to appeal their conviction and demonstrate their innocence?
You take these same pieces of crap, put them in jail until they die and provide them with only what they need to live and everything we could possibly legitimately need from a criminal justice system is served, but if we later find out the state was in error at least some remedy exists- you can let him out.
Oh, and you obviously don't read very well either ... I never advocated "broad-based policy based on a select group applied to everyone"; I stated that I am all for DP for child-murders when DNA also exists. A possible sentence for an especially heinous group. That's it, that's all.
When has a law, once written by the state, *not* faced attempts to slowly, incrementally extend it? How do you tell the parents of one murdered child that the murderer of *their* child doesn't get executed because the evidence just didn't quite hit the standard, when two months prior someone else was executed based on utterly sound evidence? How do you keep the politicians from screwing the whole thing up out of populist BS intended to get votes?
At the end of the day there is not an infallible system in human creation for determining guilt. Until a criminal justice system exists which has the ability to make that determination flawlessly, it is unjustifiable to risk murdering an innocent man because our bloodlust dictates that letting them die in prison is not enough. Everything we want to and need to see cna be accomplished by locking the son of a ***** away and throwing away the key.
Now, if a prisoner wishes to die? Let 'em. I support the right to die if one wishes. It's an inseparable part of having ultimate liberty over oneself as an individual. By all means give 'em the rope.
