Then again, this is like wrestling and it's all fake!
Based on these descriptions (with the following caveat) I am a Conservative.
Here is the caveat--the death penalty should not be applied with a broad brush. Criteria should be establised upon which each capital murder case be reviewed as to the appropriate sentence imposed.
I prefer the death penalty as it saves the taxpayer a ton of money and acts as a disincentive for others to commit murder.
One argument in support of capital punishment is that the threat of death deters murder more effectively than prison. However, research indicates that the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent to murder than the punishment of life in jail. States with the death penalty on average do not have lower rates of homicide than states without the penalty. The average murder rate per 100,00 people in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5 and the average murder rate among non-death penalty states was 3.6 (US Dept. of Justice, 2001). A study examining executions in Texas between 1984 and 1997 found that the murder rate was steady and that there was no evidence of a deterrent effect. The number of executions was found to be unrelated to murder rates (Sorenson, Wrinkle, Brewer and Marquart, 1999). Furthermore, a survey of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association shows that the overwhelming majority of these experts do not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Over 80% believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty. Similarly, over 75% of those polled do not believe that increasing the number of executions, or decreasing the time spent on death row before execution, would produce a general deterrent effect (Radelet and Akers, 1995).
A study found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life (Cook & Slawson. 1993). On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $700 million dollars spent since 1976 on the death penalty.
What many Americans do not realize is that the death penalty is more costly than incarcerating an inmate for life. A murder trial takes much longer when the death penalty is being pursued. The taxpayer is paying the salaries of the judges, prosecutors, public defenders, court officials, and the cost of briefs. "A 1982 study showed that if the death penalty were reintroduced in the state of New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more then double the cost of a life term in prison" (Bright, 1996). The Duke University study estimated that a death penalty trial takes about four times longer than a non-capital murder trial (Bright, 1996). And, of course, not every death penalty trial results in a death sentence. Based on the experience in North Carolina, the authors found that less than a third of capital trials resulted in a death sentence.
I'd be for the death penalty if they stopped trying to make it such a clean, sterile activity. Make it public, make it brutal, make it swift. Thing is, most western nations that took that road abolished the death penalty years ago.
Conservative teamsters! That's funny right there! But then you do need the union to protect you from the capitalist "free market" but the government shouldn't? Have you thought this all the way through? As if there is "free market" and "competitive capitalism".Conservative.
Conservative teamsters! That's funny right there! But then you do need the union to protect you from the capitalist "free market" but the government shouldn't? Have you thought this all the way through? As if there is "free market" and "competitive capitalism".
And not a very good one at that. I bet you squeal on your union brothers and sisters when ever you can.I am a Teamster by default.
I am a Teamster by default.