should the death penalty be reintroduced

johnnyc

just wondering what peoples opinions on the re-introduction of the death penalty. I am pro death penalty as i believe it deters murders, political groups from carrying out murdering rampages, and also the shipment of mass amount of drugs by cartels(the one in cork comes to my mind) it seems a waste of public finances to lock up these people.

montydorito

all of them should be used as ginnie pigs (instead of an eye for an eye ) test for new cures which will benifit the world they took from

tolosenc

I'm pro-death penalty in extreme cases, but not in such a willy-nilly fashion as that of the united states. If nothing else, rights(voting, social welfare, etc.) of persistant offenders should be revoked, that or their citizenship.

dfx-

Pro-death penalty too used with common sense.

Mothers starving their child, 19 hour rapes...that kind of thing. As common sense is a precious and not often found thing, I appreciate that it will never see the light of day.

Manic Moran

Without overstating the deterrence effect (I think it has less deterrence than we would hope), there are circumstances when sometimes it really is justified. Taking it off the books for killing Gardai was probably a bad move.

And frankly, revenge isn't always a bad thing.

NTM

Kama

Find the death penalty morally abhorrent, and the deterrence argument, while it makes intuitive sense, tends not to be borne out by the figures. Am writing this from the US, where if you compare death-penalty and non death-penalty states, the ones with the death penalty have consitently higher crime rates.


Usually find it comes down to revenge fantasy stuff pretty quick...when you get right down to it, everyone loves a good lynching...especially one where you don't have to get your hands too dirty. Which puts the 'they deserve it because they are monsters who enjoy hurting people' argument in a difficult position, imho.

Dave!

OP do you have figures to back up your deterrance argument?

Because as was mentioned, in the US death-penalty states have higher murder rates than non-death-penalty states.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168#stateswithvwithout

I'm not saying that it doesn't have a deterrant effect, but to assume it does it ridiculous.

If that argument doesn't hold up, then you move onto a few other points......

1. economics -- is it cheaper to kill criminals than to keep them in jail indefinitely? I suspect so, although I've seen it mentioned that it is actually more expensive. Dunno though.

2. Not everyone can be rehabilitated -- is it better for society to just kill these people?

3. Is killing ever justifiable when not in defence? Religious people might say only god has the right to take away a life (although Biblically speaking that's not really true!)

4. Is revenge a good way to run society?

5. Innocent people have been on death row... Is it worth it if even 1 innocent person is killed?

etc

So alot of ground to cover OP! I'd like to see stats on the deterrance argument though.

For what it's worth I'm undecided really. I'm leaning towards No, but am open to persuasion.

mike65

No, I like the idea of stringing them up as much as the next guy, but the state jobs should be the protect the living not kill when there is a perfectly good alternative. And one mistake is one too many.

The issue is the way sentences are handed down and then enforced. Life should mean life, not 12-15 years.

Mike.

Fratton Fred

Lock em up, throw away the key but the state, or a jury, does not have the right to determine someone should die.

is_that_so

Much of the rage at criminals and the temptation to string 'em up is the perception that the criminal justice system is not serving us properly. A lot of this, is fuelled by the "mejia" and our own frustration with how criminals seem to be getting away with it. I don't see that the death penalty would necessarily do anything beyond satisfy a lust for revenge. In my own view I am more put out by the use of "mitigating" circumstances as a measure of the accused.

Even though there are unquestionably times where happens, judges appear to come down on the side of justice for the accused far more often than they take into account the victims of crimes. What would be far better is an overhaul of sentencing and how serious crimes are defined.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

First things first:

If you're prepared to OFFICIALLY rename the Dept of Justice the Depart of Vengeance, then yes (because that's pretty much what it will be!)

But if you're not, then no.

Also, with the tabloid press in this country the way it is, expect a hell of a lot of more legalised murders by the state.

RobAMerc

Ok - at the risk of coming across as a serious right winger which I am most definitely not... but I am aware that I might be going to get some serious flak for this but...

I believe we should have the death penalty for not only murderers but also for people who are serious and habitual criminals also we should have chemical castration for rapists and pedophiles ( not the first offense perhaps - but those proven to be serial offenders )

I am also in the belief that the organs of those people removed from society could be harvested to save the lives of hundreds of decent folk who are mis fortunate enough to be in need of them, but decent enough not to commit offenses against the rest of us.

i think also that telling the people who are close to being put down that next time they are for it - must surely have an effect - if not then they deserve to die.

Elmo

The last referendum on the Death Penalty occur during the first Nice Referendum. (Yeah! there was a referendum on the subject).

37% vote againist the change in the constitution
63% vote for the removial of the Death Penalty from the constitution

I'm pro-death penalty in extreme cases, but not in such a willy-nilly fashion as that of the united states. If nothing else, rights(voting, social welfare, etc.) of persistant offenders should be revoked, that or their citizenship.
__________________
Is fearr Gaeilge bhriste ná Béarla cliste.

YES to Lisbon II - TÁ ar Liospón a II

I will be happy to clear up any concerns you may have about the Lisbon Treaty. Just drop me a PM once the date for the new referendum is announced. Hopefully, we won't suffer too much by then, but maybe the consequences of a no vote actually materialising first would be a good thing.

Now those of you in favour of the death penalty could always argue that the low turn out in the referendum is cause to retake the referendum. (That was one of the main reasons for retaking Nice)

Somehow I cann't see that happening.

The death penalty was last used in Ireland in 1944.

http://www.rte.ie/news/features/referenda/death/tonyconnelly1.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/features/referenda/results/DeathOverall.html

PS Europe is againist the death penalty, AFAIK Poland was forced to removed the death penalty before joining the EU.

Our constition before the last referendum only allowed for the death penalty when a Garda, Minister or President was murdered. Changes had been made to the laws before the full removial of the death penalty from our consistution through the democratic process of the people in a referendum. I would be againist taken another referendum on the same subject with in 10 years of the last vote.

axer

Manic Moran wrote: »

Taking it off the books for killing Gardai was probably a bad move.

Either it should be in for killing anyone or not at all. Why is a garda's life more important than a regular punter?

I am pro-death penalty in some ways but I fear what happens in mis-carraiges of justice? Is it possible that an innocent person would end up on death row?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RobAMerc wrote: »

i think also that telling the people who are close to being put down that next time they are for it - must surely have an effect - if not then they deserve to die.

Now here's the problem: right-wingers tend to use logic and theory rather than actual experience.

In theory, yes, fear would work. In pracitce, though, people who are already well into a life of crime either know nothing else, think they're immortal, or don't really care whether they live or die. So such a theory wouldn't work.

RobAMerc

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Now here's the problem: right-wingers tend to use logic and theory rather than actual experience.

In theory, yes, fear would work. In pracitce, though, people who are already well into a life of crime either know nothing else, think they're immortal, or don't really care whether they live or die. So such a theory wouldn't work.

If it doesn't work fine - kill em take the good bits out of them and let decent folk live - there is little theory to what I was saying - the warning to those with half a brain would be a beneficial side effect NOT the point of the exercise.

The point is to rid the country of habitual criminals.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RobAMerc wrote: »

If it doesn't work fine - kill em take the good bits out of them and let decent folk live - there is little theory to what I was saying - the warning to those with half a brain would be a beneficial side effect NOT the point of the exercise.

The point is to rid the country of habitual criminals.

There's little intelligence to what you're saying, never mind theory.

It's NOT about having a brain/half a brain, it's about having no FEAR!! Some of these guys are quiet sharp - they just don't care: look at Martin Cahill. Would the death penalty have made him stop, think and get a nice 9-5 job in an office?

If the point is 'to rid the country of habitual crimals' and this won't work, why bother doing it? Why not - here's a novel idea - try something that MIGHT work BEFORE the criminals commit the crimes?

mike65

Habitual criminals are among the stupidest people in society. They never learn.

Mike.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

mike65 wrote: »

Habitual criminals are among the stupidest people in society. They never learn.

Mike.

More petty criminals, for whom most people wouldn't support killing anyway.

the_syco

johnnyc wrote: »

just wondering what peoples opinions on the re-introduction of the death penalty. I am pro death penalty as i believe it deters murders, political groups from carrying out murdering rampages, and also the shipment of mass amount of drugs by cartels(the one in cork comes to my mind) it seems a waste of public finances to lock up these people.

I'm also pro-death, but I'd prefer bigger prisons, and LIFE MEANING LIFE. And not 25 or so years.

Also, death would only suit life flight risks, who are a danger to non-lifers in the prison.

I don't see the death penalty as a warning, etc. I see it as getting rid of a problem. If a seriously dangerous person gets put away, only for them to inflict fear and pain on people inside the prisons, only death will stop them. Some see death as a good thing, so it's not always a deterrance.

Kimbot

Forget about the death penalty, the only way forward with criminals in this country is chain gangs. Get them to fix up our roads, clean our towns etc. It will save a fortune in taxes every year and it might just teach them the value of working hard for a living.

RobAMerc

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

There's little intelligence to what you're saying, never mind theory.

It's NOT about having a brain/half a brain, it's about having no FEAR!! Some of these guys are quiet sharp - they just don't care: look at Martin Cahill. Would the death penalty have made him stop, think and get a nice 9-5 job in an office?

If the point is 'to rid the country of habitual crimals' and this won't work, why bother doing it? Why not - here's a novel idea - try something that MIGHT work BEFORE the criminals commit the crimes?

Please re-read my post with your brain in.
Your not getting the point. Scaring these filth into stopping would only be a happy side effect of the plan if it happened. If not then they would re-offend, we would kill them, and we're done with them - either way the scum stops offending.

axer

jonny24ie wrote: »

Forget about the death penalty, the only way forward with criminals in this country is chain gangs. Get them to fix up our roads, clean our towns etc. It will save a fortune in taxes every year and it might just teach them the value of working hard for a living.

That I agree with. Those in prison should be forced to work for the better of the community and country. It should work on a system whereby you work (and do good work) then you get benefits. You don't work or act the bollox then you have only the basic needs e.g. no tv nor other luxuries etc. Might teach them that if they act well in the community when released then they will be rewarded and not end up in prison again.

Those with no chance of rehabilitation should be terminated imo.

sovtek

axer wrote: »

That I agree with. Those in prison should be forced to work for the better of the community and country. It should work on a system whereby you work (and do good work) then you get benefits. You don't work or act the bollox then you have only the basic needs e.g. no tv nor other luxuries etc. Might teach them that if they act well in the community when released then they will be rewarded and not end up in prison again.

Those with no chance of rehabilitation should be terminated imo.

It's been tried before. Ever heard of Angola, the prison...not the country? Oh and it doesn't work.

sovtek

jonny24ie wrote: »

Forget about the death penalty, the only way forward with criminals in this country is chain gangs. Get them to fix up our roads, clean our towns etc. It will save a fortune in taxes every year and it might just teach them the value of working hard for a living.

You mean the value of working your ass off for nothing. That would make me want to get out and seek revenge on the assholes that made me a slave.
That the term "chain gang" exists tells ya that its been tried before.

axer

sovtek wrote: »

It's been tried before. Ever heard of Angola, the prison...not the country? Oh and it doesn't work.

How come?

Manic Moran

axer wrote: »

Either it should be in for killing anyone or not at all. Why is a garda's life more important than a regular punter?

In terms of value of life, it isn't. In terms of the symbolism, however, it is. By killing a known Garda, you are attacking not just the person, but the State personified. (Not to stroke the egos of Gardai, mind, but in effect, that's what it is.) They've devoted themselves to our safety, when we are too weak (or scared or lazy) to do it for ourselves. I think that deserves a slight elevation.

NTM

axer

Manic Moran wrote: »

In terms of value of life, it isn't. In terms of the symbolism, however, it is. By killing a known Garda, you are attacking not just the person, but the State personified. (Not to stroke the egos of Gardai, mind, but in effect, that's what it is.) They've devoted themselves to our safety, when we are too weak (or scared or lazy) to do it for ourselves. I think that deserves a slight elevation.

NTM

I don't agree. It is a job like any other jobs. There are many other jobs out there that keep us safe and save our lives. Why should someone be less punished for killing someone else?

uptherebels

axer wrote: »

I don't agree. It is a job like any other jobs. There are many other jobs out there that keep us safe and save our lives. Why should someone be less punished for killing someone else?

but its not a job like any other,they have to deal with the scum of society.
How often do you have deal with drug dealers and armed gangs in the course of your job?

axer

uptherebels wrote: »

but its not a job like any other,they have to deal with the scum of society.

What about doctors, social workers, security personnel, soldiers etc ? Many people have to deal with the scum of our society.

berliner

it's ironic most people here are against the death penalty and in support of muslims opening mosques wherever they want.Ironic because muslim countries kill and mutilate (chop off hands) of their citizens as a punishment.

sovtek

berliner wrote: »

it's ironic most people here are against the death penalty and in support of muslims opening mosques wherever they want.Ironic because muslim countries kill and mutilate (chop off hands) of their citizens as a punishment.

OMG you found people with religious and moral contradictions. How extraordinary.

mike65

How did you divine that wisdom?

Mike

Riddle101

I'm pro treaty. there are so many scum outhere getting away with s**t and there's nothing been done about it. Gangsters who have murdered, rapists and psycopaths get off with anything and all we're supposed to do is watch Ireland turn into another Columbia. It's the very reason why Limerick has been voted the most dangerous City in Europe

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RobAMerc wrote: »

Please re-read my post with your brain in.
Your not getting the point. Scaring these filth into stopping would only be a happy side effect of the plan if it happened. If not then they would re-offend, we would kill them, and we're done with them - either way the scum stops offending.

Your point is/was wait until the commit the crime and get caught, was it not?

My responce was/is: how is this preventing the crime that they've just commited? And how is it preventing future crime if they do not get caught?

Was it not?

If we want to breed people for organ donors, there are more efficent ways. Not as ethical, granted, but who gives a sh1t as long as it gets the job done?

Mena

I'm undecided on this, but leaning towards "fry the fecker". One thing I remember vividly growing up in a country with a death penalty is the fear of the cops nabbing me and hanging for something I did or didn't do. No idea why I recall this but I do.

uptherebels

axer wrote: »

What about doctors, social workers, security personnel, soldiers etc ? Many people have to deal with the scum of our society.

very big difference in the way that they "deal" with them.You cant compare the dangers that a garda in this country faces with what a doctor or even a soldier has to put up with in their daily job.

Manic Moran

Social workers and doctors tend not to have an adversarial relationship with the 'scum' with which they deal. Either the 'scum' comes to them seeking help, or they go to the 'scum' seeking to help. Police, on the other hand, have an adversarial relationship to begin with: They're the enforcers, and when it comes to the criminal 'scum,' they are absolutely not welcome, and not there to help.

NTM

Tea drinker

I'm more or less against the death penalty, there has been a few cases of wrongful deaths, ans there is just no going back from this.
I would prefer to go in a different direction. what if we had value for money in the prison service?

1. No more wasting money (20mill) on expensive land when these guys should be kept in a swamp.
2. For some inhuman acts you give up your rights to be treated in a humane manner.
3. I believe in Punishment, not just confinment. It gives both victim and perp the chance to get over the crime. It also reinforces on the perp that he did something wrong, and that worse is waiting for him if he returns. To deprive the perp of the opportunity to suffer for his crimes violates his rights.
4. People have a right to safe streets, they are paying for it.
5. repeat offenders should be put away for a long, long time, in a cheap ass prison. These guys cost a fortune on the streets. Put them to work in prison, making tents and bedding to sleep in.

ejmaztec

I don't believe in the death penalty, but I do believe that the prison regime itself is too soft and too lax. Easily available drugs also makes a mockery of the whole system.

It seems to me that, apart from the lack of travelling, the life of an incarcerated con isn't too different from life on the outside. They should all be put to work on the kind of task that will give them the incentive not to return.

Executive Steve

Lol @ the idea of the irish government being competent enough to kill someone


The death penalty is not a deterrent - it is a very powerful signal that life is not worth protecting.

State killing is wrong in all of its forms.

Kama

For those who believe prison is too lax:

Have any of you been in prison? Or even visited one?
Its easy to say 'prison is too easy'. Even easier if you have no experience of one.

If you believe prison, and the retribution/punitive approach works, reducing crime by hurting the people who commit crimes, then it follows that the perceived fact that it isn't working (increased recidivism/reoffending/crime generally) is because it's 'too lax'. Another way of looking at it is that it doesn't deter, tends not to rehabilitate, and makes people more likely to be rearrested, which accounts for the same fact: repeat offending.

Berliner, I'm amused by the irony that the people who tend to talk about how awful shari'ah is tend to be all for making prison as painful, degrading and hurtful a process as possible.

Orchard Rebel

The argument is moot. The EU has abolished the death penalty in perpetuity, meaning we'd have to leave the EU in order to restore it. Not sure how far the pro-death penalty lobby would get with the "let's leave the EU so we can execute people" argument.

wes

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

The argument is moot. The EU has abolished the death penalty in perpetuity, meaning we'd have to leave the EU in order to restore it. Not sure how far the pro-death penalty lobby would get with the "let's leave the EU so we can execute people" argument.

I am actually not against the death penalty per se, but I don't think it worth leaving the EU for.

Also, its doesn't seem to be a effective deterrent and in a lot of cases seems more like revenge imho.

ejmaztec

[cm]tyranny wrote: »

Lol @ the idea of the irish government being competent enough to kill someone

That's obviously why they chose English people to do most of it for them.

http://www.irishpost.co.uk/news/story/?trs=eyeykfgb

Hangman for the Irish State
By Malcolm Rogers

HIS noose, ropes, black hood and the rest of his hanging equipment lie stowed away in a black box at Mountjoy Prison and his grim chamber still stands in the grounds of the jail where he carried out the last State-sanctioned execution in the Republic of Ireland in 1954.

Just before despatching 25-year-old Limerick murderer Michael Manning to eternity hangman Albert Pierrepoint announced to the gathered group of prison guards and priests: “I love hanging Irishmen — they always go quietly and without trouble.

“They’re Christian men and they believe they’re going to a better place.”

Minutes later the condemned man — who had been found guilty of the murder of a 65-year-old nurse — was hanging at the end of Pierrepoint’s noose the knot at the back having neatly broken his neck as he fell through the trapdoor.

At the time Manning’s hanging passed almost without note.

The death penalty was then an accepted part of Irish life and few questioned it let alone protested outside the prison gates.

And although the Catholic Church has been remarkably consistent in its condemnation of capital punishment since the middle ages Archbishop McQuaid — so often responsible for giving guidance on matters Christian — remained silent on the Limerick man’s fate.

Two years after Manning’s execution — exactly 50 years ago this summer — Albert Pierrepoint resigned as British Chief Executioner.

He’d been official hangman in Britain since 1932 and as Ireland didn’t have anyone to fill such a position Pierrepoint became the unofficial hangman of this country as well — employed independently by the Irish State.

Dublin man George Bernard Shaw may have said: “Put an Irishman on the spit and you can always get another Irishman to turn him” but it seems to have been impossible to get one Irishman to hang another.

Thirty-five people were hanged for murder between 1922 and 1954. They included one woman — Annie Walsh of Co. Limerick who was executed on August 5 1925 at Dublin’s Mountjoy prison for the murder of her husband.

Albert Pierrepoint or his uncle Tom were responsible for despatching 29 of the 35 to their death — the others were shot by military firing squad.

The Pierrepoints also plied their trade in the North.

In the 20th century there were nine hangings in Belfast and Derry with either Henry Pierrepoint or his brother Thomas officiating.

Henry’s son Albert only visited the North twice helping his uncle to hang Tom Williams in Belfast in 1942.

The very first execution which Albert Pierrepoint officiated at was in Mountjoy Prison in Dublin on December 29 1932 when he assisted his uncle Thomas at the hanging of Patrick McDermott — a 26-year-old killer.

This launched a long career in the business.

Albert Pierrepoint was by far the most prolific British hangman of the 20th century.

In office between 1932 and 1956 he executed an estimated 433 men and 17 women — including six US soldiers at Shepton Mallet, some 200 war criminals and over a dozen Irishmen.

Fighting Irish

I don't care either way about death penalties but if it was up to me i'd just make prisons pretty much like they are in Prison Break(last season), it wouldn't take much money to run that

montydorito

The death penalty is a waste of a good Guinea pigs lets use the scumbags for once ....the thought of making them work is in itself a good idea but they are a bunch of f***ing w****Rs ..so that wont work.....killing them is easy choice but in my eyes.....we should utilise these c***S for once ....almost like a human farm...(Guinea pigs )
A few reasons and benefits
1. even though the majority will be infected with disease..They should be forced to give blood
2. used by companies to test new products such as perfume ect these companies could pay the government to use these inmates ...thus paying to house these pigs
3. used by the medical scientists to test for cures such as cancer .....instead of them having to spending years researching, testing animals ,spending millions on artificial tissue ect going through millions of tests before they can even look at human patient
4. think of the disease they could cure using inmates as Guinea pigs ....the benefits would be vast lives saved(they murdered) money(they stole) time saved(they wasted through their crimes) all in one
5.they will have the chance to repay back to society what they took ...whats is great they have no choice ... eg making them work they can just refuse.. but inject them with medicine they will be powerless to refuse.
6.death is sweet release for some inmates who deserve nothing less than years of torture (regarding the case of the man who raped someone for nearly a day)
7.the time to develop a drug would be dropped significantly
8.prisons would become less crowded as more and more inmates are used as Guinea pigs
9.80% of criminals today are repeat offends in England a proper punishment system in Ireland would defer repeat offenders
10 Ireland has the softest prisons in the world ....the Carlsberg slogan springs to mind if Carlsberg did prisons they Probably be the best in the World.. well Ireland certainly has this down to a tee

While many will disagree with this...it’s only an idea which certainly couldn’t make the situation any worse than it is
While the usual objections will be human rights, lets just see how they violated someone rights and to what extreme and lets by all means violate their rights..An eye for an eye kind of thing except mankind benefits from this exchange for a change

Elmo

The argument is moot. The EU has abolished the death penalty in perpetuity, meaning we'd have to leave the EU in order to restore it. Not sure how far the pro-death penalty lobby would get with the "let's leave the EU so we can execute people" argument.

It is funny that you say that because I was sure that 34% (63% of the 34%) of the Irish Electorate abolished the Death Penalty and not the EU. But prehaps the EU has more power than the People

Low turn out could be a reason to retake that Referundum. Also we didn't get this kind of discussion during the last referundum, most people have forgot that there was a referundum on the subject.

Wonder how brussels would have felt if we had said NO to the abolishion of the death penalty.


PS: - I am totally againist the Death penalty. One of the good things about the EU.

FTA69

johnnyc wrote: »

I am pro death penalty as i believe it deters murders,

It doesn't. The type of person that would kill another human being isn't concerned about the death penalty. In America they have capital punishment and the murder rate is higher in some cities there than it was in Belfast in the 1980s. Likewise they have a "three strikes" rule which hasn't stopped people in their tracks at all.

political groups from carrying out murdering rampages,

People have been executing Republicans for decades, you are talking about people prepared to starve themselves to death. What difference is a death penalty going to make?

and also the shipment of mass amount of drugs by cartels(the one in cork comes to my mind) it seems a waste of public finances to lock up these people.

People will always smuggle drugs because of the astronomical amount of money involved. Risk is always measured against reward, and the "reward" of millions of euros is usually deemed to be worth the hassle.

I'm against the death penalty largely because I disagree with it morally, however there is also the fact that it is pointless and just doesn't work.

Kevster

johnnyc wrote: »

just wondering what peoples opinions on the re-introduction of the death penalty. I am pro death penalty as i believe it deters murders, political groups from carrying out murdering rampages, and also the shipment of mass amount of drugs by cartels(the one in cork comes to my mind) it seems a waste of public finances to lock up these people.

Can I just say that, in US states where they have introduced the death penalty, violent crime actually rose. The death penalty therefore does NOT deter crime. If you want to save money by reducing the amount of people there are in prisons, then tackle each of society's problems at the grass-roots level. Many of our criminals don't know any better, and they need to be looked-after properly from the moment they are born, and not from the moment they commit a crime in adulthood/adolesence.

... ...be proactive, not reactive.

Kevin

Jim_Are_Great

Just to get this out there, executing a convict is by no means cheaper than extended incarceration. Take America, the best example available of a state with a large execution rate accompanied by credible surveys, as an example. They, like Ireland, have a (largely) adversarial criminal justice system. This means that a large part of the court costs are taken by the state. In practise, a lot of execution cases are taken against poorer people which, by virtue of state legal aid, would mean that the state bears virtually 100% of the legal costs.

Now, in an Ireland in which the death penalty operated, I can only hope and assume that there would be a higher threshold for an execution conviction than for an imprisonment conviction. If anyone thinks this assumption is invalid, go ahead and explain. Otherwise, with this added threshold, the legal proceedings become more complex and thus lengthier. Without wanting to sound trite, this means and exponential increase in tax-subsidised legal proceedings. Then you've got state-subsidised medical bills and the obligatory appeal-pending incarceration funds.

The most comprehensive death penalty study in the US found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment.

As far as I'm concerned, there are a host of other reasons for having no death penalty. But the economic one is one that gets thrown around fallaciously all too often, in my opinion.

Here
are
some
sources