(August 14, 2018 at 9:25 am)Jehanne Wrote: This morning at 10 AM CDT, the State of Nebraska is set to execute Carey Dean Moore, who says that he is "ready to die". His victims' families approve of his upcoming execution. But, when Mr. Moore dies a (hopefully) peaceful death, he will cease to exist, and hence, no longer suffer the punishments of prison. In fact, if he experiences what I experienced a few days ago when I fainted while on my feet due to a brief illness (probably, mono), he will never even experience death. Instead, he will go to sleep and then die.
In this sense, how can the death penalty be said to be "punishment"; isn't it just better to leave Mr. Moore in prison for the rest of his life if you wish to see him be punished for his heinous crimes? Instead, Mr. Moore gets to end his life on the World stage, on the front pages of major newspapers across the Globe.
Yes, but if you are going to argue what most really think about, outside moral issues, the real reason you should object to the death penalty is the cost to the tax payer. ON AVERAGE it costs the tax payer far more to prosecute a death penalty case than it does to give them life without parole.
The moral reason to object to it is that it hurts those without financial means to defend themselves, not just the poor, but the middle class as well. Not everyone has the money of a millionaire or billionaire who commits the same crime. And far too often it hurts minorities more on average for the same accusation.
