LogFAQs > #884271581

WaterLink posted...

I see the argument brought up that life sentences are cheaper than death sentences, but isn't that because of appeals? Like pleading guilty to get life instead of the death penalty by pleading not guilty + many appeals?

If that's the case, could it be that if the death penalty was banned, you'd actually see an increase of not guilty pleas, thus making life sentences more expensive, if not more expensive than the life/death combo we currently have?

Also, would pleading guilty to the worst of crimes prevent you from life sentences if the death penalty was eliminated?

Death penalties by law must go to the highest court of appeals possible in every case. If the sentencing is not he death penalty, higher courts can deny seeing the appeal case, and in many of the death sentences that would turn into life sentences, they most certainly would. Usually appeals are only looked at if there is reason to suspect there was a problem with the trial.

The natural question is "why not make it so that death penalty appeals can be denied"? And that's simply a matter of philosophy. Is it better for a prison to pay the cost of living of a pointless life in jail for a heinous murderer, or risk murdering innocent men and women, particularly those that may have been convicted for prejudice? The automatic appeal for death penalty is to ensure there are as few wrongful executions as possible. People sentenced for life can be freed after exoneration. Dead people can't.

The current philosophy is to allow more guilty men to go free than innocent men be unfairly prosecuted. If you feel it should be the opposite, fair enough.
---

<insert sig here>