These threads about hideous crimes are a good example of why hideous crimes happen in the first place. People are pissed about the lives taken, but always demand the state to take the life of another one.

It just shows how human being's minds work and why this kind of stuff happen. People are violent by default... what makes us humans and not savages is how civilized we are. Demanding death is being savage, uncivilized and less human.

I don't know how your statistics work out but he is a  young man and lets say  he had 50 years of life left and each year cost $20,000 in prison (low estimate I believe) that is $1 million dollars. I see no reason why a death sentence would cost no more than $5.000. However I would definitely want a delay to execution where the evidence is fully investigated which would add to costs.

I don't know what figures you have though but on face value it sounds like they will be totally ridiculous.

Clearly there should be huge savings. However I know its easy to prove anything you want with statistics.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/

There are a lot of appeals involved in death penalty cases (some are mandatory) which cost time and money. The average death row inmate is in prison for 13 years before they are executed and cost much more per year than the general prison population ($90,000 more a year per inmate in California).

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-07-exepensive-to-execute_N.htm

How is killing innocent people the same as kiling guilty people?

You talk in boring clichés.

I completely disagree with the death penalty. So I don't think he should get it, but not for the reason you provided.

... America, you need to stop being so backwards on so many things.

At least your Supreme Court has brought you kicking and screaming on the topic of gay marriage (which we Aussies are frustrated at our current PM's lack of willingness to budge on), but every other civilised nation on earth has abolished the death penalty, and for good reason - it doesn't accomplish any of its aims, and in the meantime it's just plain wrong.

It's wrong when the person is a drug smuggler, as with the "Bali Nine" Aussie guys who were murdered (death penalty is murder) by the Indonesian government, and it's wrong when the person is involved in a terrorist attack as in this case. It's wrong, no matter what the crime. The only justifications that I've ever heard for the death penalty are these: retribution, lower cost than life in prison, setting the victims' families minds at ease, and discouraging the acts that have it as a punishment. The latter three have all been shown to simply not be true.

For any country with a fair legal system, the costs of all of the processes leading up to the use of the death penalty easily outweigh the cost of keeping the person in jail for life, including the cost of the higher security used for death row, and besides, making a decision on someone's punishment on the basis of what's cheaper is cruel and inhuman. The victims' families are rarely ever actually comforted by the death - it might feel like an end, but the feelings aren't resolved at all by it, in the vast majority of cases. And the death penalty has proven, many times over, that it is not a deterrent - those who would commit these kinds of crimes usually know that they're risking death anyway (even without the death penalty), and discount the issue.

And that just leaves retribution... and no civilised society punishes its citizens (or anyone else) for the purposes of retribution. Vengeance is disgusting. It's a primal, animalistic response that has no place in modern society.

So I'll say it again - the death penalty is just plain wrong. In all cases.

A sentence to life in prison is a better way to make him pay.
Also you should be able to use this people as human guinea pigs for speeding medical research. That way, they would even repay society for what they have done and for all prison expenses.

All the people saying he should live, OK, why don't you all get together and chip in to pay for his lifetime prison sentence.  People shouldn't have to pay to feed this guy.

When a person is undeniably guitly of a heinous and egregious crime, the public should not have to pay for their life-time prison sentence.  If they can work out a way where he doesn't cost the public anymoney to incarerate, then let him live.

if forced that is torture and inhumane

on a voluntary basis (with very detailed information of the risks) it could be introduced as a means to provide money to the family or to reduce the sentence

Your right, people shouldn't have to pay for their life-time prison sentence but what we are paying for is the service of justice to be accoutable for our safety which is to say we are paying for safe neighborhoods. Someone said it perfect before in that the prisoners should effectively run jobs for the prison like cooking, cleaning, mail services, electrical and mechanical services. The less a prison costs, the better but it shouldn't come at the cost of public saftey.