akuma587 said:
That is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard someone say. Many non-violent crimes such as possession of certain drugs can get you more than twenty years in prison. Are you suggesting that people who pose no real threat to society should be arbitrarily sentenced to death simply because they are sentenced to 20 years in prison? There is a little thing called the Constitution that would make what you suggest unconstitutional. Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. What you are suggesting is about as far from due process as you can get. Its simply an arbitrary decision to choose whether or not people live or die. Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Its pretty cruel and unusual for the punishment to so excessively outweigh relatively minor crimes. |
Not only that, but in most cases the death penalty ends up being considerably more expensive than putting a person in a cell for the rest of their life.
I'm in no way trying to reduce this serious punishment to a mere economic matter. Its just that killing everyone who has a sentence of over 20 years would costs states a massive amount of money.
For the record I'm against, but not just because I'm a cheapskate.
