What Is The Pros And Cons Of Capital Punishment

1490 Words 6 Pages
So you were called in for jury duty, this man has been charged with killing a family of four because he was obsessed with the housewife. His sentence can reach to death. As you think to yourself “no-one should endure capital punishment”, the attorney lists off his offenses. Stalking the family for about 6 months, they found countless of pictures of the family. He recorded what days they go to work or school and what times they usually come home. He was even contemplating on whether he should drug the neighbor’s dog, but opted for killing it instead. He did his research on what knife to get, which one can hold its edge and which is easier to clean. They found thorough plans of the house and how he would escape at his house, along with personal …show more content…
Most of the argument is favoring the con side of capital punishment, but that isn’t really make much sense to me. “In Maryland, an average death penalty case resulting in a death sentence costs approximately $3 million. The eventual costs to Maryland taxpayers for cases pursued 1978-1999 will be $186 million. Five executions have resulted.” Deathpenaltyinfo.org. Then I saw why, it’s because they might have missing information regarding people who spend life in jail. “Deathpenaltyinfo.org reports that in the state of Maryland, it can cost up to $37 million to execute a death row inmate rather than keeping them alive and imprisoned annually at around $1 million per year. However, the figures representing the cost to keep a prisoner alive per year do not. “Lifers” are equally likely to pursue the same those sentenced to life without parole have an indefinite period of time to appeal, unlike a death row inmate, in the long run the financial cost of housing a lifer will easily surpass the cost of housing a death row inmate.” – akorra.com pro. So if all the cost comes from trials and trials of debating whether or not this man should die in the hands of the law, why can’t we make the court more efficient? I know it sounds bad, spend more time killing than deciding, shoot now ask questions later. But with today’s technology advancing in terms of forensic science, who’s to say we can’t do it in a couple of days? About 30 years ago if the suspect left a pool of blood in the crime scene, they would clean it up and question the neighbors. Nowadays if you find even the smallest strand of hair, you can find the dudes credit scores. Imagine in 30 more years what we could do, hell imagine in ten

Related Documents