Study: States can't afford death penalty

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/20/death.penalty/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

California houses 678 inmates on death row, but has not executed anyone in four years. But it does spend more than $130 million on the capital punishment system. Many people see this as a waste of funds and believe that it is taking away from other anti-crime and law enforcement programs. Currently, 35 states still have the death penalty but fewer and fewer executions are taking place each year. Death row seems to be turning into a sentence of life without parole. And that however, is becoming very expensive in a time of an economic shortfall. It is becoming expensive because more money has to go into increased security and police officers at the prisons. But, the Death Penalty Information Center study found that death penalty costs can average $10 million more per year per state than life sentences. Many death penalty proponents say part of the problem is that states have added unnecessary, time-consuming delays, and have been reluctant to carry out the death penalty that their own legislatures have enacted, and that the delays are what is causing the cost to go up. Some people believe that having the death penalty can offer powerful incentives in plea bargaining and could provide states with large savings in trial and incarceration costs. So, in the end it seems like it could be as simple as a flip of a coin to determine which would be more cost efficient, but the moral side of things is what the true controversy is. Becasue either way, whether they are on death row or serving a life sentence, if they are dangerous the security needs to be there to monitor them.

For once I feel like I don't really have an opinion on something. And of all things it is the death penalty, something that I feel a person should have a strong opinion on. If we focus on the cost side of it and what would be more cost efficient, whether to have the death penalty or not, it seems to be about the same. If we keep the death penalty it puts on a pressure on the people who have committed crimes to fess up to them because of the fear of the death penalty if they are proven guilty without admitting to it. But, if they admit to it then their sentence could be reduced to a life-long one. This could help reduce the costs of the court system because less lengthy trials would be being held because more people would be more likely to just fess up. But it could also somewhat increase the costs because the prison would have to house that many more inmates and higher that much more security personel. But according to the Death Penalty Information Center study the death penalty costs an extra $10 million per year per state more than life sentences. So there it is, doing away with the death penalty is the cost efficient way to go. But without the death penalty criminals will no longer have that fear lingering in their minds and have nothing forcing them to fess up. So, we could almost end up with more guilty criminals getting away with the crimes they have committed. But in my opinion I almost think a life sentence would be worse because you are caged in like an animal for the rest of your life. That's terrible. But I am aware that in many prisons and jails the inmates are allowed to do everyday activities just like they weren't incaged. So basically a life sentence turns out to be nothing more than being forced to live the rest of your life there like it is some sort of institution. The longer an inmate is held there and the more progress they show in their good behavior the more freedoms they will have, so basically after a few years of literally being behind bars they could almost be back to a normal life. So it roots back to the question of is a life sentence really severe enough, or is the death penalty a necessary thing?