youbeabitch, i agree entirely with you.
keep in mind, my following statements are entirely based upon the US, and primarily california's system. i have very little knowledge of the system outside of the US, and therefore, don't feel i can justly include it in my opinion. also, i REALLy do not want to offend anyone. this is a topic that is VERY personal, and we are all entitled to our own views and beliefs.
first of all, life sentences - while they are supposedly a more "humane" form of punishment, they raise whole new problems amongst themselves.
-taxpayers' money is being wasted constantly, as these criminals are being given better civil liverties than many US citizens. i know a prison dentist, and the dental and medical care given to the inmates far exceeds the care given to the poverty stricken, but law-abiding citizens of the US. we have an obligation to provide top notch health care to those serving life sentences, because any breach in care could lead to an appeal, or a lawsuit, and furthermore could lead to the release of the prisoner. the theory of " you commit a heinous crime, we'll imprison you, but treat you really nice," just doesn't sit well with me. i think prisoners get way too much entitlement, and if something goes wrong, we are essentially setting the whole justice system up for failure.
-secondly, the people serving life terms must have EXTENSIVE guards and wardens, which are expensive to pay, seeing as how prison guard isn't really on the FORBES 500 list of high power jobs. the prisoners are incredibly violent, unpredictable, and frankly, since they know they're going to be in there for life, they feel they have nothing to lose. the number of debilitating injuries inflicted upon prison guards in california alone last year was in the thousands. why do more innocent people need to suffer for the original perpetrator's crime? until we can find a way to properly house, care for, and secure criminals, as well as find someplace to fund it all, incarceration is just another problem we must face.
-also, lifetime imprisonment raises the stakes at convicted felons escaping. while the US has one of the better jail/prison systems in the world, we are still not perfect. in california, last year, hundreds of convicted felons escaped from incarceration, several of which are still missing. thousands of dollars, however, were spent on the hunt for, and subsequent capture of these escapees. again, unnecessary tax dollars going to waste, and lives, both of peace officers and civilians, are being put on the line.
let me quickly point out that, OJ simpson was acquitted because the jury could not find him guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, which is the accepted standard of the US criminal court system. he was LATER found GUILTY in the CIVIL court system, which has a different standard for proving one's innocence or guilt. he didn't "walk free" as many sensationalist media outlets would like you to believe, he ended up paying $33 million in restitution to the estate of nicole brown simpson and ronald goldman, and suffering other assorted hardships because he was found guilty in the wrongful death suits of the above mentioned. the fact that the state attorney could not prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt did not necessarily have anything to do with how much he spent on his legal defense team. the state attorney, as you know, is a state funded office. without knowing the absolute details of what was presented during the trials, it's unfair to assume his acquittal in the criminal case was directly tied to the price of his defense.
there are three main things one must consider when discussing the death penalty. first and foremost, the legal aspect, including the constitutional repercussions. second, the philosophical aspect, namely, the ethical and moral grounds, and third, the statistical analysis on effectiveness and deterrence. however, when considering these three points of interest, one must also consider these points from the standpoint of a murder victim. for example, take lacey peterson, the pregnant wife in northern california who was brutally murdered by her husband. was it LEGAL when scott peterson took her life, and the life of their unborn son? was it ETHICAL when he committed murder? it was certainly PERMANENT. if you take into consideration these three points, and apply them to the criminal, take the three points and also apply them to the victim(s), who clearly had no say in their fate.
interestingly enough, i am studying law to become a criminal defense attorney, yet i believe strongly in the death penalty. so strongly, in fact, that i don't think it's used enough. the death penalty, in california, at least, is most often used in cases involving especially heinous capital murders. i don't necessarily believe an eye for an eye is the BEST solution, however it has been proven over the course of time that so far, society as a whole hasn't been able to come up with a better solution, that is both cost effective, efficient, and safe, to all those involved. the number of convicted felons who are released, whether or not by legal means, that commit further acts of violence, often escalating in nature, is staggering, and for that reason alone, i feel that the death penalty is right.
okay, as you can tell, this is a subject i feel quite strongly about. again, i really value and respect everyone's opinions on here, and don't mean to insult anyone. i think this is a great topic for conversation, albeit, a heavy and emotional one. still, i think we're all doing a great job of being civil and respectful. also, seeing as how it's 5 am here, and i can't sleep, i hope this whole long response makes sense. i'm too tired to go back and really proofread it in detail, lol.
