Furthermore, a lot money could remain in the pockets' of the American taxpayer.
Presently, the only ones benefiting from the death penalty are the lawyers. All this money and time spent in order to make lawyers rich.
You could not be more wrong. There is no "good outweighing the bad" equation here.Wrongful conviction is no excuse to oppose a measure which on balance could save more lives than would be lost through wrongful conviction.
No - the point here is that you have just shown that your moral standards are so far adrift from anything decent that you cannot see the difference between people being killed by a system not designed to kill, and one which is only designed to kill.Can the airline companies guarantee that there will never be another plane crash, can the train companies guarantee that a train will never crash, if they can't give such a guarantee why aren't they prevented from operating . This is the point, the anti hanging only oppose it because it offends their sensibilities.
Thus spake the voice of reason .You night as well have tried to reason with Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot...
So, turn that on its head then: one, just one, entirely innocent person deliberately or otherwise killed by a criminal, because the state would not introduce the death penalty, just in case one person might (and an outside risk at that) be executed in error, is ok in your books, is it?You could not be more wrong. There is no "good outweighing the bad" equation here.
One, just one, innocent person deliberately killed by the state more than negates any other savings in lives, no matter how many.
One, just one, innocent person deliberately killed by the state removes any shred of moral authority that the state tries to assert and makes it no better than the criminals it is trying to control.