The death penalty also does not have to be so expensive. Although the death penalty is legal, opponents claim that it costs much more to execute someone than it does for them to be in prison for life. The main reason for the high costs of the death penalty (and the length) are the amount of appeals people can do. You can have dozens of appeals - which can take decades - before finally being executed. All jurisdictions have appellate courts; however according to the Supreme Court case of McKane v. Durston, "there is no constitutional right to have a conviction or sentence examined by an appellate court." Even if we have appellate courts, the court can legally limit each convicted person on death row to only one or two appeals before execution, therefore cutting a lot of the costs and time associated with being on death row.

89% IS NOT FUCKING EVERYONE

I'm done...I'm done...I can't take it anymore. Just kill me and get it over with. This is worse than any painless death could ever hope to be...

Look up "hyperbole." When I say "everyone," I do not literally mean 100% - and if you're arguing this point you shouldn't get into debating. 89% is enough to confidently say everyone. You know when you try to say most prisoners prefer death over life you shouldn't link to me a website that says 97.5% (with an estimation of 11%) of them prefer life to death.

Yes, the use of Hyperbole in debates surrounding statistics is a super great way to get a point across without sounding like a total buffoon.

Additionally, I never said most! Stop putting words in my mouth! However, 11-13% is a clearly statistically significant amount, so no, it isn't insignificant enough to confidently say "everyone" (and again, while the comparisons with the general population are difficult, this whole conversation becomes laughable when you factor suicide statistics into the mix).

Finally, the decision between life imprisonment and the death penalty isn't exactly simple. Its not just making a simple choice between the two options. Appeals in death penalty cases offer the potential for freedom, so that sliver of a hope makes the decision much more complicated and obviously skews it in a certain direction.

Let the thread die, it's already dying pretty quickly. Pretty unbearable to read.

Why are you so against rehabilitation? It functions, statistically. Everyone sympathises with the victims, and it is our duty to reduce the number of these. But if killing the murderer doesn't help to do so, statistically, why would one do it?

For. Prison is a money-pit. Why should innocent people pay for vicious criminals to be fed, looked after and entertained?

No it's not.

I am for rehabilitation for non-violent offenders/low class violent offenders.

What kind of death penalty reform? You want to limit appeals so that it goes quicker AND make sure it's more accurate? Please, elighten us as to how that works.

Your last paragraph is borderline sociopathic, not to mention another huge straw man. It also doesn't actually point out a single benefit to the death penalty, but I'll indulge.

I don't care about what happens to the 96 people who are put to death that are guilty, my concern is the 4 innocent people that would be put to death along side them. Not too mention that it isn't 500 AD and we are so far beyond the need for the death penalty that it has about as much place in our legal system as bloodsport does on ESPN.

If  someone I love was murdered, I'd want to tear the killer apart with my bare hands. LUCKILY! We don't live in a society that allows for revenge justice since in that case I would likely be the least qualified person on the face of the earth to make any decision regarding the trail or legal proccess.