Death Records Now

instead of cheering high numbers.
why do conservatives consider Texas’s record amount on death row inmates as a win?
they beat every state at the record amount of murderers. that’s a pathetic lose you people are proud of. whichever state has the record amount of abortions certainly isn’t getting any cheers from the left. that’s a tragedy. that’s why we want to provide social programs. so people wont have to resort to murder and thief just to make it to the end of their life.

My opinion has nothing to do with conservative v. liberal arguments. It is based on the death penalty system in action:

For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it isn’t effective in reducing crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.

The worst thing about it. Errors:
The system can make tragic mistakes. In 2004, the state of Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for starting the fire that killed his children. The Texas Forensic Science Commission found that the arson testimony that led to his conviction was based on flawed science. As of today, 138 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant (as in Willingham’s case) and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Capital juries are dominated by people who favor the death penalty and are more likely to vote to convict.

Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty

Costs, a surprise to many people:
Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. Since the stakes are so high, the process is far more complex than for any other kind of criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. These apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.

Crime reduction (deterrence):
The death penalty doesn’t keep us safer. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent.

Who gets it:
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn’t apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. How many people with money have been executed??

Victims:
People assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty imposed. It isn’t necessarily so. Some are against it on moral grounds. But even families who have supported the death penalty in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

It comes down to whether we should keep the death penalty for retribution or revenge in spite of its flaws and in spite of the huge toll it exacts on society.

im doing a project for english, and i wanted to see other peoples aspects on this peice of text.

There are serious economic consequences. Various state governments estimate that a single death penalty case, from the point of arrest to execution, ranges from $1 million to $3 million per case. Other studies have estimated the cost to be as high as $7 million. The millions of dollars spent on capital punishment cuts into resources for other community interests, such as schools, hospitals, public safety, and jobs. For example, Taxpayers in Florida are spending an average of $2.3 million on each execution which is over six times what it would cost for life without parole. In addition, New York brought back the death penalty in 1995, even though the department of corrections estimated that it would cost over $2 million per case and approximately $118 million annually. That same year, state leaders complained that there was a budget shortfall and made dramatic cuts in funding for public higher education and health care. Similarly, New Jersey spent $16 million to impose the death penalty. The next year, the state laid off 500 police officers because they could not afford to pay them.

The death penalty should be abolished because it involves a heightened risk or error. The risks of inaccurate judgment have been elevated because the death penalty has become a politicized issue that is commonly used in campaigns for judges and district attorneys who are elected to their positions. Those judges and prosecutors are motivated to sentence as many defendants to death as they possibly can to maintain a record of being “tough on crime.” Also, due to the high emotions surrounding murder cases, there is great pressure on law enforcement officials to solve homicides quickly. Such pressure may lead to misconduct by the investigators and prosecutors. In addition, murders frequently lack eyewitnesses, forcing the prosecutors to use less reliable sources for evidence, such as jailhouse snitches, accomplices looking for reduced sentences and coerced confessions from defendants. Because of these high risks there have been recent cases of mistaken execution or conviction. Leo Jones was convicted of murdering a police officer in Jacksonville, Florida on March 28, 1998. Jones signed a confession after several hours of police interrogation, but he later claimed the confession was coerced. In the mid-1980s, the policeman who arrested Jones and the detective who took his confession were forced out of uniform for ethical violations. The policeman was later identified by a fellow officer as an "enforcer" who had used torture. Furthermore, Texas executed Jesse Jacobs on January 4, 1995 despite the prosecution’s admission that arguments they made at Jacobs’ trial were false. Jacobs was convicted after the state introduced evidence that he, rather than his co-defendant, pulled the trigger on the day of the murder. At the following trial of the co-defendant, the state reversed its story and said it was the co-defendant, not Jacobs, who pulled the trigger. The prosecution vouched for the credibility of Jacobs’ testimony that he did not commit the shooting and did not even know that his co-defendant had a gun. Jacobs’ co-defendant was also convicted, but not sentenced to death.

The death penalty should not be allowed in this country. We have the resources to keep society safe from criminals, so, it is unnecessary to have such an inhuman and degrading punishment. This punishment does not deter crime. Giving in to it wastes essential money that destroys our economy. And, there also might be some reasonable doubt to someone’s guilt. The death penalty should be abolished.

In brief, the reading is someone’s opinion, against capital punishment, i.e., where states can administer the death penalty to convicted felons. (ie, murderers).

It says that the state should not have the power to do, what it will punish a criminal for doing. It also says that states will pay MORE for the "justice system", i.e, court costs to convict such a felon, more than would be paid, if the court system ONLY went to give "life" imprisonment.

That is, those who get the death penalty have more "overhead costs", paper work, more investigation and documentation required, than someone that is only going to be sent to prison say for 20-40 yrs, or a simple "life imprisonment" sentence.

These facts are computed from thousands of such cases. Jury trials are expensive, and there are more hours of lawyer costs in capital punishment cases.
Do you know what lawyers charge? Know how much money "expert" witnesses charge the state?

Taxpayers foot the bill (pay) for every murder case. But with a "capital case" conviction there are many more appeals and reviews. Likewise these cases get more publicity, and that means that prosecutors have to be more careful, not to mess up too.