I\'m sorry Matt but that is a pathetic argument to make, financial considerations bear no relation as to whether someone should be executed or not.Originally posted by mattsterbenz
It saves the state (taxpayers) a vast amount of money, and is the ultimate punishment for a crime (aside from what judgment God will make).
By your statement \"Saving the Taxpayers Money\" could equally be applied to Involuntary Euthanasia for someone dependant on state financed aid for medical care.
I would hate to see an innocent human be killed for a crime he/she did not commit.
It should only be used on murder cases (or something equally terrible), and only in cases where the court has direct evidence of the suspect\'s guilt (fingerprints, body fluid evidence, caught on video, etc). A verdict obtained only by witness testimony should not result in the death penalty because there is always the chance that the witnesses could be wrong/lying/misunderstanding/etc.
Then I bring to your attention the case of Stefan Kisko Wrongfully convicted on forensic evidence and the suppression of contradictory evidence.