CHAPTER 2
Argument 17 (17)
The alternative to the Death Penalty, i.e. prison, means that the taxpayer’s money goes to support the living of the murderer and the violent criminal. This is offensive
By itself this is no real argument against the capital punishment. A question of life or death has in itself nothing to do with economy. No one should support the death penalty and make this the definitive reason. But together with the other arguments this has its given place.
It is commonly offensive to the sense of justice to know that the taxpayer’s money supports the most heinous criminals and their living during their time in prison.
The death penalty on the other hand is considerably cheaper for the society than e.g. lifetime in prison.(1) This naturally assumes that the legal proceeding for the most violent crimes is basically the same whether the verdict can be death or lifetime. If a country in Western Europe today introduces the capital punishment there should be no considerable differences in the legal proceedings when it comes to criminal cases concerning violent criminals and murderers. What should be economically compared is therefore, in principle, only the sanction. It is either 1) lifetime in prison, or 2) in a capital case, the time between the verdict of the first trial and until the time of the execution, about 5 years as we propose. It is undoubtedly an economical difference to the society with this alternative in comparison to lifetime in prison.
And it will not only be in the penal system that there will be savings. Since someone who has been executed is unable to commit further crimes this will be an economical saving even for the police power and the medical service as well as psychotherapy. Every execution therefore means economical advantages in many areas for the society and the taxpayers. This should be compared to cruel criminals who are e.g. sentenced to prison. Many of them commit new crimes (in the prison, on leaves, on escapes or after being released), which means great expenses to the society.
But the question is not only the size of the expense but also where the taxpayers’ money principally should go: Is it reasonable, is it fair and does it feel morally sound that the taxpayer’s money is used, at all, to support the most heinous criminal or the murderer for a lifetime? Should such criminals first be able to hurt or kill people and then be supported by the taxpayers? Thereby also supported by the victims of crimes and their relatives and friends?
We say no and mean that the capital punishment is the only thing that can avoid the moral indignation that lightly wake up with this costly alternative of lifetime in prison for the most ruthless criminals.
Accordingly, the main thing is not what is most expensive - the death penalty or lifetime in prison. The main thing is what the societys money is used for. The money used for in death penalty cases is mainly for the judicial system itself so that law and order can been guaranteed as far as possible until the execution. That is well invested money. The money used for when it comes to lifetime in prison is also used for the judical system but more for expenses after a judical process, when the violent criminal or the murderer in many years will be payd for guarding, room, food, clothes, medical service, activitys etc., and that from the citizens purse. This is for many outrageous and offensive.
Footnote 1. See also chapter 4, "Investigations concerning costs." Back.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
© David Anderson 1998, 2002
http://w1.155.telia.com/~u15509119