Should Capital Punishment be allowed?

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: jer0608

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: jer0608
Don't get me wrong: I believe that death is a just punishment for some crimes. I just question our competence to mete it out. In my mind, even one innocent person condemned to die by the state is an unforgiveable atrocity. As distasteful as it may be, I would prefer the worst offenders known to man remain among the living than see someone wrongly deprived of life by the state. That is why I am anti-death penalty. If our system was foolproof regarding wrongful conviction, I might feel otherwise. But I might also be a vengeful bastard .

Regarding the deterrence argument, do people honestly believe that a significant number of those who commit these heinous acts consider punishment prior to committing them? Do you believe that these deviant individuals do a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis before they, say, kill that cop? Do you believe they conclude that the possibility of life in prison is a definite go for the nun shooting spree, but the death penalty means I'll stay at home and watch Dr. Phil? Personally, I believe that most murders are either not thought out at all or committed by individuals so twisted that the thought of punishment only enters into their decision making process as they make plans not to get caught. I find it hard to swallow that the dealth penalty makes a real difference in violent crime rates.

I believe that we had an example of just that sort of consideration in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago. The guy was going up for life for rape. He had time to think it over in the cell and figured that for the same penalty he could kill some deputies and the judge. Debate that!

:roll:

Not only that, but the only reason he gave himself up was in fear of the death penalty. He wanted to avoid it after he had time to think about what he had done. Too bad he didn't realize they would make an exception for him before.

The key words are "significant number" and "most".

I would hate to generalize based on this single event. If you know of other studies/incidents that back up the deterrence position, I would like to hear about them. I would be willing to admit that I am wrong, but not based on this case alone.

On another note, I am not completely convinced this case illustrates your point, but I may not up to speed on the event in question. My understanding was that the suspect overpowered the 50+ year old grandmother who was escorting him. That situation suggests a crime of opportunity with a primary motive of escape rather than maximizing the crime he could get away with.

Quote:
"He had time to think it over in the cell and figured that for the same penalty he could kill some deputies and the judge."

Did he admit to this or is it supposition?
Georgia has the death penalty, no? If so, it obviously didn't deter this guy.

Quote:

"...the only reason he gave himself up was in fear of the death penalty. He wanted to avoid it after he had time to think about what he had done."

Again, this suggests it didn't enter his mind before the crime and was not a deterrent.

No one knows the full story yet, but he gave himself up hopeing to avoid the death penalty and in particular hopeing to avoid the SWAT team. That indicates that there was fear of death and that it was a deterrent in this case. It was initially thought that he would find and kill more and then fight to the finish.

 

[Moonbeam]

A real IQ is judged by the ability to express complex ideas in simplistic terms, not the ability to express simple ideas in complex terms. I really stuck a pin in your butt, didn't I?

I can't imagine why you think so. All I got from you was a simpleton expressing himself in simplistic terms.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: maluckey

There are no legitimate studies that suggest capital punishment is a beneficial deterrent (not sure what "ultimate deterrent" means if its not a deterrent to begin with), and society can be protected with life in prison. Some regard that as too expensive, but in doing so put a price on life, which contrary to new testament values. In regard to getting "closure", it also shouldn't be sought at the expense of the values in the new testament, from a christian perspective that is.

Let me clarify a tad: Capital punishment has NO recidivism, and NO escaping...ergo NO possibly way to repeat an offense of any kind (you're dead after all) therefore it is the "ultimate" in deterrence.

As far as a price on life, I value life of all kinds......I'm more concerned that these individuals can and do escape and may cause carnage (again). If there is no hope to return the individual to soceity after paying for the crime, then why keep the person alive? Even the Catholic Church has provisions for this in their faith. They have a guideline for non-repentant violent criminals that refuse to consider their eternal soul. The person must also be a grave risk to the community if he/she escapes. In these extremely rare cases, the Catholic Church will support Capital Punishment.

I put my views like this: If you have a huge Ape that has a defective brain, but is nonetheless quite dangerous, having a taste for human flesh, and that Ape has escaped several times to repeat his deeds, and even returned from the rain forest after being sent there, just to eat tourists, do you lock it up or put it down? The same with rabid dogs? What about a non-repentant criminal who denies Christ, and worships Lucifer? Should you be selective? Should all be put down, or risk the communtiy? What's your choice? I choose death in all examples above.

What about a murderer who is very sorry and cooperative in prison? Who by all accounts is working on changing to be socially acceptable? So long as the community accepts the decision, I choose life.

Death should be for extreme cases, not as a punishment, but as a solution.

What about a repentent criminal who 'denies Christ"?

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: maluckey
As far as a price on life, I value life of all kinds......I'm more concerned that these individuals can and do escape and may cause carnage (again). If there is no hope to return the individual to soceity after paying for the crime, then why keep the person alive? Even the Catholic Church has provisions for this in their faith. They have a guideline for non-repentant violent criminals that refuse to consider their eternal soul. The person must also be a grave risk to the community if he/she escapes. In these extremely rare cases, the Catholic Church will support Capital Punishment.

I put my views like this: If you have a huge Ape that has a defective brain, but is nonetheless quite dangerous, having a taste for human flesh, and that Ape has escaped several times to repeat his deeds, and even returned from the rain forest after being sent there, just to eat tourists, do you lock it up or put it down? The same with rabid dogs? What about a non-repentant criminal who denies Christ, and worships Lucifer? Should you be selective? Should all be put down, or risk the communtiy? What's your choice? I choose death in all examples above.

What about a murderer who is very sorry and cooperative in prison? Who by all accounts is working on changing to be socially acceptable? So long as the community accepts the decision, I choose life.

Death should be for extreme cases, not as a punishment, but as a solution.

This is all fine and dandy, but when the justice system in the US has been shown to send innocent people to death row (almost 20% of the death row inmates in Illinois were exonerated by DNA evidence) I can't support it for any criminal. Let them rot in jail with no chance for parole for the rest of their lives. The escape rates from maximum security and supermax prisons are pretty much 0, so I'm not really worried about them killing again.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: jimkyser
This is all fine and dandy, but when the justice system in the US has been shown to send innocent people to death row (almost 20% of the death row inmates in Illinois were exonerated by DNA evidence) I can't support it for any criminal. Let them rot in jail with no chance for parole for the rest of their lives. The escape rates from maximum security and supermax prisons are pretty much 0, so I'm not really worried about them killing again.

I'm gonna throw in a pre-emptive 'the death penalty does not save money due to the huge cost of appeals' here, followed by 'when your system already makes mistakes, you can't justify doing away with the appeals process'.

Because people keep jumping in with those ideas without reading the thread.

 

[Zebo]

Some of you all (maluckey/condor) should really read this book I link...by Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst and a conservative Judge... talk about how innocent people are convicted all the time by our crimminal crimminal justice system. Cops lying, judges and govt ignoring rule of law etc all to get convictions boost thier budgets and look like "good" guy to public when in fact they are your worst enemy. This will change your veiw about capital punishment I think but all in most egreous and obvious cases.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de...1/002-0160880-8087279?v=glance&s=books

 

[Zebo]

Condor, it's my understanding it actually more expensive to kill people (at least the way we do it now about $15 million) than life in super max so The "cheaper' arguement is suspect... least under current lengthy appeals process which I think is important to insure real guilt at least.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Condor, it's my understanding it actually more expensive to kill people (at least the way we do it now about $15 million) than life in super max so The "cheaper' arguement is suspect... least under current lengthy appeals process which I think is important to insure real guilt at least.

Like I think I have stated, the problem is not with capital punishment, but with the system which administers it. We should fix the system. Science has come a long way. When a cop lies in court (and it has happened to me), the cop should go to jail. When a judge seats a jury, he should not be allowed to instruct them, that should be done by a neutral body. When a DA brings falsified evidence, he/she should do time. When the system is wrong, it should pay and pay with pain. I think that we all agree that paying people to be in positions to screw us as citizens goes against anything that any of us believe. We really need to drill down to the real problems and not to fall for the baubles that we are pointed toward.

 

[Zebo]

Ya I agree but the temporary solution is to stop these acts by the state you can't take back (like someones life) until these issues are addressed and resolved. I don't think they'll ever get fixed so I think CP sould be abolished. the government is a huge socialist police state organ ever growing and feeding/benefiting off it's citizenry so will not change and do whatever it takes to prevent change. This whole "national security" and "terror" alerts and scare tactics I believe is to get just more power for them manifested in Patriot acts 1 and 2 and other things like spending from a unsuspecting/naive/scared public. Back in the 80s it was the drug war, which they can now sieze all your sh1t, and you got to prove you're innocent. Back in 70's it was tax cheats with similar legislation came and stayed.

 

[jer0608]

Originally posted by: Condor


Like I think I have stated, the problem is not with capital punishment, but with the system which administers it. We should fix the system. Science has come a long way. When a cop lies in court (and it has happened to me), the cop should go to jail. When a judge seats a jury, he should not be allowed to instruct them, that should be done by a neutral body. When a DA brings falsified evidence, he/she should do time. When the system is wrong, it should pay and pay with pain. I think that we all agree that paying people to be in positions to screw us as citizens goes against anything that any of us believe. We really need to drill down to the real problems and not to fall for the baubles that we are pointed toward.

While I agree the system can be much improved regarding wrongful conviction, I think you would encounter lots of pitfalls with what you propose.

It would be interesting to see how many prosecutors would pursue the death penalty if threatened with loss of career and incarceration for a wrongful conviction. We would certainly get a feel for how much confidence the system has in itself. My guess is, if this was invoked in any meaningful way, it would result in de facto elimination of capital punishment. Alternatively, it could result in further corruption in the judicial system, as those in power seek to bury any exonerating evidence to save themselves.

The best case scenario of CP prosecution moving forward only on the strongest cases may be feasible, with proper judicial oversight in place. However, I do not believe you will ever have a workable system with no wrongful convictions. When the sentence for these convictions is completely irreversible, I find that unacceptable.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: jer0608

Originally posted by: Condor


Like I think I have stated, the problem is not with capital punishment, but with the system which administers it. We should fix the system. Science has come a long way. When a cop lies in court (and it has happened to me), the cop should go to jail. When a judge seats a jury, he should not be allowed to instruct them, that should be done by a neutral body. When a DA brings falsified evidence, he/she should do time. When the system is wrong, it should pay and pay with pain. I think that we all agree that paying people to be in positions to screw us as citizens goes against anything that any of us believe. We really need to drill down to the real problems and not to fall for the baubles that we are pointed toward.

While I agree the system can be much improved regarding wrongful conviction, I think you would encounter lots of pitfalls with what you propose.

It would be interesting to see how many prosecutors would pursue the death penalty if threatened with loss of career and incarceration for a wrongful conviction. We would certainly get a feel for how much confidence the system has in itself. My guess is, if this was invoked in any meaningful way, it would result in de facto elimination of capital punishment. Alternatively, it could result in further corruption in the judicial system, as those in power seek to bury any exonerating evidence to save themselves.

The best case scenario of CP prosecution moving forward only on the strongest cases may be feasible, with proper judicial oversight in place. However, I do not believe you will ever have a workable system with no wrongful convictions. When the sentence for these convictions is completely irreversible, I find that unacceptable.

Condor has already decided that mistakes are okay with him, since, by assumption, he won't be wrongfully convicted of murder.

 

[maluckey]

Oddly enough, despite the errors existing, most all of the death row convicts are hardened criminals to start with. Go figure that the cops and the jury pick on them.

They have gotten away with heinous crimes up to and including murder. I'm not saying that a person wrongfully convicted should die, but the overwhelming percentage are hardened criminals to start with.

As far as reading studies about it.....I've been there first hand, and have extensive experience with the criminals themselves. Some should die, others should live to pay for their crimes and work the rest of their lives (what's left) in peace.

One thing I am against, is Life without parole. If the person is so dangerous that they cannot be released, they should be put to death. Otherwise, counseling and back breaking work for the community is the ticket in my opinion.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Oddly enough, despite the errors existing, most all of the death row convicts are hardened criminals to start with. Go figure that the cops and the jury pick on them.

They have gotten away with heinous crimes up to and including murder. I'm not saying that a person wrongfully convicted should die, but the overwhelming percentage are hardened criminals to start with.

Even if this were true, it is still pointless rationalizing. Our justice system is not supposed to work on some sort of 'averaging' principle. Every time a mistake is made, it solidifies the position that the state simply can't and shouldn't be trusted with life and death.

As far as reading studies about it.....I've been there first hand, and have extensive experience with the criminals themselves. Some should die, others should live to pay for their crimes and work the rest of their lives (what's left) in peace.

One thing I am against, is Life without parole. If the person is so dangerous that they cannot be released, they should be put to death. Otherwise, counseling and back breaking work for the community is the ticket in my opinion.

So you would rather execute someone and find out later that they are innocent than keep dangerous criminals safely off the streets?

 

[jer0608]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Oddly enough, despite the errors existing, most all of the death row convicts are hardened criminals to start with. Go figure that the cops and the jury pick on them.

They have gotten away with heinous crimes up to and including murder. I'm not saying that a person wrongfully convicted should die, but the overwhelming percentage are hardened criminals to start with.

As far as reading studies about it.....I've been there first hand, and have extensive experience with the criminals themselves. Some should die, others should live to pay for their crimes and work the rest of their lives (what's left) in peace.

One thing I am against, is Life without parole. If the person is so dangerous that they cannot be released, they should be put to death. Otherwise, counseling and back breaking work for the community is the ticket in my opinion.

If my posts imply an opinion that the judicial system is more fallible than it is, I apologize. The point, though, is that when it comes to capital punishment, any wrongful conviction is a huge problem. Oddly enough, I agree with almost everything you wrote. Problem is, even if you have an amazingly competent judicial system, you are eventually going to execute an innocent person. Life without parole at least leaves open the possibility of exoneration, while accomplishing the same thing with regards to recidivism.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Oddly enough, despite the errors existing, most all of the death row convicts are hardened criminals to start with. Go figure that the cops and the jury pick on them.

They have gotten away with heinous crimes up to and including murder. I'm not saying that a person wrongfully convicted should die, but the overwhelming percentage are hardened criminals to start with.

As far as reading studies about it.....I've been there first hand, and have extensive experience with the criminals themselves. Some should die, others should live to pay for their crimes and work the rest of their lives (what's left) in peace.

One thing I am against, is Life without parole. If the person is so dangerous that they cannot be released, they should be put to death. Otherwise, counseling and back breaking work for the community is the ticket in my opinion.

Ok, how many innocent people need to get executed before it's too much for you? Have you ever heard of Randall Adams? He had NO prior convictions. He was not at all remorseful, because he didn't do it. He wasn't present at the scene of the crime. But they still convicted him of murdering a Dallas police officer and also handed down a death sentence. They used his lack of remorse as ammunition to get the death sentence. The actual killer was the state's star witness. Amazingly, this witness had stolen the car, he had stolen the gun, he had a pretty long rap sheet for a 17 year old. But that was the problem, he was only 17 and Texas couldn't send a minor to death row in the early 80s. And we couldn't very well not execute the killer of a police officer shot down at a simple traffic stop, now could we. So the state saw it as convenient to believe his BS story and charge Adams instead based solely on this kid's testimony.

In order to stop Adams from getting his standard automatic appeal they commuted it to life w/o parole. The actual killer is currently serving time in CA, I believe, for raping and killing a young woman, after Adams was convicted.

And this is the justice system you think is properly setup to decide who needs to be killed? That 20% in Illinois was more than 20 men. They may have had priors, I don't know. But even if they did, that would never justify executing them on false or incomplete evidence.

If you want to find out more about Randall Adams and how the justice system was stacked against him watch the documentary 'The Thin Blue Line'. These people made this documentary after Adams was convicted and the questions it asked about the whole process eventually won his release and exoneration, after 8-10 years in prison.

Oh, and the prosecutor that led the charge against Adams, he passed away of old age. How nice to leave before he could have been punished.

 

[imported_Condor]

I'll see you good folks in a couple of weeks. Got to go and remodel a house to sell. That'll take about a month. Bye!

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Capital punishment is not exclusively for punishing the criminal, but to protect soceity and to give a sense of closure to a community.

Capital punishment isn't the worlds greatest deterrent, but it is the ultimate one, in that once applied, there are no recidivists.....

federal pound me in the @$$ prison is probably the ULTIMATE deterrent.

 

[maluckey]

You know, I have been active with several groups over the years, trying to shorten sentences. My beleif is that long setences only harden people so that they are no longer able to function outside of that warped environs.

My belief is that prison should be tough, both physically and mentally. So much that it breaks a man down to be rebuilt into a well-intentioned hard-working individual. Those that cannot ever be released, I still support death, Especially if they are too dangerous to get out. The rest should serve enough time to work out their mental deficiencies and be put them back to work for the community where they commited the crime, until a certain debt (monetary) is paid. At that time they should be free to move on and do as they please.

This would lessen fiscal burdens overall, separate criminals from each other, and re-humanize the convict. It would also be a good deterrent as the convict would work his butt off as well as attend mandatory group counseling during the process. For the first phase, a lengthened version of Marine boot camp (1 year) would be in effect, after that, hard tasks, and difficult jobs till stability and initial therapy has been achieved. After a couple of years of this, community labor, while still living at night in the compound till the debt is paid.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: maluckey
You know, I have been active with several groups over the years, trying to shorten sentences. My beleif is that long setences only harden people so that they are no longer able to function outside of that warped environs.

My belief is that prison should be tough, both physically and mentally. So much that it breaks a man down to be rebuilt into a well-intentioned hard-working individual. Those that cannot ever be released, I still support death, Especially if they are too dangerous to get out. The rest should serve enough time to work out their mental deficiencies and be put them back to work for the community where they commited the crime, until a certain debt (monetary) is paid. At that time they should be free to move on and do as they please.

This would lessen fiscal burdens overall, separate criminals from each other, and re-humanize the convict. It would also be a good deterrent as the convict would work his butt off as well as attend mandatory group counseling during the process. For the first phase, a lengthened version of Marine boot camp (1 year) would be in effect, after that, hard tasks, and difficult jobs till stability and initial therapy has been achieved. After a couple of years of this, community labor, while still living at night in the compound till the debt is paid.

Would you support the death penalty for a man convicted of killing a police officer at a traffic stop and who has absolutely no remorse? Then you would have killed Randall Adams. His lack of remosre and the fact that is was a police officer are the two things that pretty much guaranteed he got the death penalty. They had a psycologist talk with him for about a half hour. He was known as 'Dr. Death' because he was used extensively in these types of cases where they were trying to show that the defendant wasn't reformable. He asked Adams if he was sorry, Adams said no, so he couldn't be reformed and must be given death. Of course, it makes all the sense in the world that Adams would have no remorse for a crime he didn't commit, but you've yet to acknowledge that there are people who get wrongly convicted and are more worried about the the cost of housing them.

 

[mithrandir2001]

I oppose the death penalty in every case. I say this as a progressive liberal, not as one of these so-called "culture of life" religious people. I guarantee you that one day future children will look back at our era with amazement that we have state-sanctioned killings, just like today's kids find amazement that America, land of liberty, the free and the brave, actually had allowed white people to enslave Negros.

 

[maluckey]

Thin Blue Line is a movie.....as such should not be used to asses what happened.

The Randall Adams case keeps coming up. He was innocent of the crime he was charged with. A jury found him unlikeable and his lawyers were idiots so he lost the case. He was later exonerated. The system worked. What is the issue???

Irritating the jury is a sure way to offend and predjudice them against you. He was the victim of his own arrogance and a rotten defense. Should he die? No. Would another less arrogant approach have served him better? Yes.

Ask Scott Peterson about making the jury like you. He was convicted on circumstancial evidence. He would have goten life if he would have shown politeness and likeablility.

I do beleive that if a community employs officers with that little regard for the law, then they should be held accountable. It is the real issue here, not the entire system. When communities and departments can self police, then we all benefit.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Thin Blue Line is a movie.....as such should not be used to asses what happened.

The Randall Adams case keeps coming up. He was innocent of the crime he was charged with. A jury found him unlikeable and his lawyers were idiots so he lost the case. He was later exonerated. The system worked. What is the issue???

Irritating the jury is a sure way to offend and predjudice them against you. He was the victim of his own arrogance and a rotten defense. Should he die? No. Would another less arrogant approach have served him better? Yes.

Ask Scott Peterson about making the jury like you. He was convicted on circumstancial evidence. He would have goten life if he would have shown politeness and likeablility.

I do beleive that if a community employs officers with that little regard for the law, then they should be held accountable. It is the real issue here, not the entire system. When communities and departments can self police, then we all benefit.

But time and time again, we see that errors will be made: it doesn't matter if it's Texas, and you can really only be executed if you are also black, or if it's corrupt cops and prosecutors, more interested in convictions than solving crimes. You can change those things, and you still won't have a perfect system.

To me, even if you believe the state should have the authority to execute the guilty, you need a perfect system to go with the 'perfect' punishment.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Thin Blue Line is a movie.....as such should not be used to asses what happened.

The Randall Adams case keeps coming up. He was innocent of the crime he was charged with. A jury found him unlikeable and his lawyers were idiots so he lost the case. He was later exonerated. The system worked. What is the issue???

Irritating the jury is a sure way to offend and predjudice them against you. He was the victim of his own arrogance and a rotten defense. Should he die? No. Would another less arrogant approach have served him better? Yes.

Ask Scott Peterson about making the jury like you. He was convicted on circumstancial evidence. He would have goten life if he would have shown politeness and likeablility.

I do beleive that if a community employs officers with that little regard for the law, then they should be held accountable. It is the real issue here, not the entire system. When communities and departments can self police, then we all benefit.

No, the system didn't work. See, the little prick that fingered Randall Adams was himself guilty. And had he been charged and convicted, as he easily could have been, he wouldn't have been out on the street to rape and kill another person. And there is that small matter of Randall Adams spending almost 10 years in the Texas state prison system for doing absolutely nothing except going to movie and smoking dope with a little prick he worked with.

And please stop with the blaming Randall Adams for getting himself convicted because he wasn't likeable enough. He shouldn't have been there. The prosecutor knew the 'witness' was guilty, but he wanted another death penalty conviction on his resume. He cared nothing for justice, only to raise his stature among the bad ass Texas prosecutors.

And The Thin Blue Line is a DOCUMENTARY. Except for the reenactment of the crime, there were no actors in it. It was just interviews with the pivotal people to the case. His lawyers weren't idiots, they were disallowed to present evidence that would have cast a reasonable doubt. That's what lawyers are supposed to do, cast a reasonable doubt so you get acquitted. And the ONLY reason he was exonerated was the existence of the film and it's ability to get out the facts that were suppressed at the trail that would have gotten him acquitted.

But since Adams was finally sentenced to life w/o parole, you'd have had him executed to reduce your tax burden. Let's hope you never get wrongly convicted of a serious crime. Oh yeah, like you said, that only happens to worthless hardened criminals. Except Randal Adams wasn't one of those either.

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: khunkami
Just wonder,,, If you are Christian, do you allow capital punishment(execution)?
I would say yea, cuz it may decrease criminal rate...just wonder...

No, because

1. the state has should have no authority over life and death
2. when they have been granted such authority, they have made grievous errors, executing innocent people
3. the best evidence available shows no deterrent effect of capital punishment

1) The state has the authority to put murderers to death. After all, in a democratic society the state is you and I.
2) There has not been a single case of an innocent person being put to death in the US
3) It isn't supposed to be a detterent. It is supposed to be punishment, hence the term capital punishment. This is the biggest nonsense argument you can make. You can just as easily be against jailing people because evidence shows that it isn't a deterrent. So what?!? Should we argue that you shouldn't jail people because it isn't a deterrent?

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Only a fool would kill somebody to teach others not to kill. And once dead there is no fixing a mistake.

The death penalty may have been a necessary evil at a time before maximum security prisons.

A tombstone is a lot cheaper than a room in maximum security.

Not when you consider the years of appeals (gov't-paid lawyers) and years spent in a dedicated cell on death row.

Yet another nonsense argument. A person with a lifetime sentence also has the right to appeal so they acrue the same legal costs as a person on death row.