I was reading an interesting npr article that discussed the drop in the number of death sentences in 2009. Only 106 criminals were sentenced to death in 2009, the average since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 is over 300. Criminal justice experts say this large drop was caused mainly by the public's increased awareness of the costliness of the death penalty and state legislature giving prosecutors the option of life without parole. Additionally, in the past year nine people sentenced to death were found innocent after they were killed. The general consensus among legal/criminal justice professionals is that the lengthy, expensive process required to sentence a criminal to death is too inefficient for the death penalty to be a sensible option. It is actually less expensive to shelter and feed an inmate until their death than it is to kill them. This brings alot of questions to my mind. Is their any point in having a death penalty if it is more expensive life without parole? I think not. Why should we waste our resources on this inefficient process if we can imprison a criminal for less. They will still be separated from society and will have to suffer a lifetime of loneliness. What do you think? Should the death penalty cease to be an option for prosecutors? Are some crimes so despicable that death is the only sufficient punishment? Should the death penalty be reconstructed more efficiently?
POST!
No comments:
Post a Comment