My understanding is that when the cost of the mandatory review processes, appeals, etc. is factored in, capital punishment is no less expensive than life imprisonment. I don't have those figures at hand, and haven't time to go and look; perhaps someone who has engaged in this debate before - it comes up now and again on SI - can provide a citation. The irony, of course, is that for a defendant represented by a public defender the review process is largely a matter of ritual (I wonder how many clients of private attorneys ever get executed, relative to the number represented by public defenders), but it remains the only safeguard available against executing an innocent.
The comment on deterrence has to be taken in context: I said that I could understand support for capital punishment if some clear benefit was served by it that could not be obtained by life imprisonment and that would outweigh the possibility of an erroneous execution. If capital punishment could be demonstrated to have a deterrent effect on crime, that would be such a benefit. Since no such effect can be demonstrated, the issue is, as yo say, mood.
Still waiting to hear, from anyone, what commanding benefit execution provides - other than the fact that it feels good - that can not be provided as well by life imprisonment.
I don't feel comfortable with the idea that government has the right to decide who deserves to live, or even what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. The government's role is to to protect individual rights, punish those who violate individual rights, and restrain people are demonstrably too dangerous to others to be allowed to go free. I think the powers of the government to punish and restrain should be no greater than the minimum necessary to achieve these ends.
Just my opinion, obviously. |
