See I don't really have that spirited argument on this topic. Obviously if the death penalty somehow affected me personally I would develop some kind of support one way or another. However, to me the topic of capital punishment is just a distant one. Here is what I know.
There are two issues. I used to think that one, to keep prisoners in a livable and appropriate enviroment, costs a lot of money. So financially, not instituting an execution, provides a large burden for the state to administer the hospitality. But after doing more research, this is what I discovered. "Capital punishment costs more than life without parole. Studies in the US show that capital cases, from arrest to execution, cost between $1 million and $7 million. A case resulting in life imprisonment costs around $500,000." (International Debate Education Assosiation) With this in mind scratch that argument.
So the question that is central now, is does the death penalty accomplish two things. If it does these two things it should be administered. Does it deter criminals to commit crimes? Here is what the study indicates. "Higher execution rates can actually increase violent crime rates. California averaged 6 executions a year from 1952 to 1967, and had twice the murder rate than the period from 1968 until 1991 when there were no executions. In New York, from 1907 to 1964, months immediately following an execution showed a net increase of two murders - an average over a 57-year period." (International Debate Education Assosiation) So leave that idea for a second.
Is capital punishment suffiencent retribution for the victim's family? I think that fact is something I can not comprehend until something happens to me like.
Now the question is did Clifford Boggess deserve the death penalty? I DONT KNOW. I CANT COMMIT TO ONE OR THE OTHER. Let me come back to this thought. I promise i'll be back.
No comments:
Post a Comment