If one kills another then that one should get the death penalty. The most basic reason; it was the killer’s choice to kill, it’s rarely the victim’s. The killer knew or should have known what was at risk. If a killer is willing to risk the penalty, what does that say about the killer? There have been several incidents where someone was in prison for life and that person kills another prisoner. Why? The killer is already serving the harshest penalty. Tesst ttis
Anti-death penalty people trumpet the high cost of a death sentence. They tell of the many years it takes to come to trial and the litany of lawyers involved; all the while expenses build up. It’s not unusual for a death penalty case to cost millions of dollars while It only costs a few hundred thousand dollars for a life sentence. For liberals, dollars are the end of all ends. They never tire of wasting money or using it to buy votes. When logic fails: Bring up money.
Let’s keep up that theme, money. For those states with the death penalty, it saves them millions each year; regardless of how many inmates on death row. The savings are realized when a death penalty case comes to trial, and the defendant is offered a life sentence instead of seeking the death penalty. What is usually penned into that plea bargain is that the case can never be appealed.
Keeping the death penalty option does act as a deterrent. It’s not measurable, but how many times has a robber or kidnapper decided not to kill multiple victims or to torture a victim because it puts the death of the criminal into play? We will never know. But if you are one of those kidnapped or about to be tortured, you will be grateful; usually without ever knowing.