Do you think its cruel and unusual to execute murderers suffering from mental illnesses?
Should the supreme court turn its attention towards this issue?
and in what states do they have the death penalty? If we stop this or keep it going, how is it affecting our economy?...
- Susan SLv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
The easiest part of your question:
STATES WITH THE DEATH PENALTY (35)
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming
Plus U.S. Military & U.S. Gov’t
In 2009, there were 52 executions, carried out by just 11 states:
South Carolina 2
You asked about the economics. Study after study has shown that the death penalty costs much more than life in prison. The high costs of the death penalty are for the complicated legal process, with the largest costs at the pre-trial and trial stages. The point is to avoid executing innocent people. The tremendous expenses in a death penalty case apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.
Here are a few examples of trial costs (death penalty and non death penalty cases, California):
People v. Scott Peterson, Death Penalty Trial
$3.2 Million Total
People v. Rex Allen Krebs Death Penalty Trial
$2.8 Million Total
People v. Cary Stayner, Death Penalty Trial
$2.368 Million Total
People v. Robert Wigley, Non-Death Penalty Trial
This data is for cases where the best records have been kept.
I believe the death penalty is bad public policy. It doesn’t prevent or reduce crime, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.
At the least, the Supreme Court should ban the execution of people with serious mental illness. The requirement is that the condemned person has to be sane enough at the time of the actual execution to know what is happening and why. On at least one occasion, this has been accomplished by forcibly medicating the prisoner. Part of the appeals court which allowed this stated that death is the only unwanted side effect of the medication. This attitude speaks for itself.
- dudleysharpLv 69 years ago
From a legal standpoint, the cruel and unusual description would apply to some mental illnesses and not others, depending upon the degree and type of mental illness and how it effects the defendants abilty to understand the nature of the offfense, as well as their ability to participate in their own defense.
In other words, their competancy will determine any consideration of cruel and unusuual punishment.
- giuliettaLv 43 years ago
i'd desire to be sure calling it "cruel and strange" if the disabilities have been profound, obtrusive, undeniable, related to intense, debilitating retardation or insanity. i would not evaluate it "cruel and strange" if all they had grew to become into "upload," or "IED," or any of extremely some different "issues" that I in certainty evaluate imaginary. i do no longer think of people like that have any issues in any respect in different phrases. i'm specific there's a organic set of transformations from easily the "regular psychology" in any inhabitants, and that i'm specific people like q4 properly in the obstacles of what can fairly be considered "regular adequate." Psychology in its cutting-edge state slightly merits to be called a technology in the 1st place. It quite can not be disputed there are circumstances of real psychological impairment, in spite of if it hardly takes a knowledgeable expert to become attentive to those.
- car05161967Lv 79 years ago
Yes, Because it irresponsible to let a person's mental illness get to the point of, their becoming condemned criminals, to the point of being executed.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Jim RLv 59 years ago