Prisoners have to work in prison. A free person with a low-paid job in Sweden can realistically achieve more then a one room with kitchenette with IKEA furniture, a game console and membership in a sports club. Both the prisoner and the free person have access to free health care and education.
What you should really think about is why your countrys low-paid job make Swedich prison a luxury apartment......
Ok then, do you have a better source or outlook on what the actual costs of an average DP are? Or should I and others simply take your word for it? It's not only the government that states the costs of the DP vs life sentence, there are also Case Studies done that flat out measure the number of court dates a DP uses.
It's downright a fact that the DP is costing far more than LWOP. Could the costs be cheaper? Maybe. If lawyers work for cheaper pay or downright volunteer but that's simply unrealistic expectations.
A quote from the linked research paper that pretty much summarizes the whole thing (because few here like to read):
Our findings are unequivocal: Colorado’s death penalty imposes tremendous costs on taxpayers and its benefits are, at best, speculative, and more likely illusory.
The wise wolf who's pride is her wisdom isn't so sharp as drunk.
You have such an active imagination you should write a book not waste your talent for dreaming up unlikely scenarios on these forums!
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, you'd say that, but science has proved you wrong... deterence never really works against crimes like murder.
- - - Updated - - -
Fixed that for you.
Russia does not have the death penalty, they are a member of the Council of Europe.
Belarussia is that country right next to it that almost nobody knows or cares about much.
Simply because no one has a right to take another's life, even if someone has done it.
And as others have said, even now, we have people inside which are innocent. We can rarely have a 100% certainty straight away / in the trail.
Also, while I'm against, and against revenge, this is slightly contradictive of what I've said, but from what we gather the dp is quite painless and relatively quick, that to me is getting off easy. They should be left in their cells to rot, 3x3 one small window with basic adequate food and water for what is required to keep the human body functioning. One or two hours (if that) a day outside in a courtyard for interaction with other prioners to keep their mental health some what stable. None of this luxury bs of having an allowance, access to the Internet, TVs, gyms, visitation rights.
The same way you can make a very good estimate about the absolute number of spelling and grammar mistakes in a book without ever finding all of them as long as you have two proofreaders who made a list of the errors they found? It is called "science", more specifically "mathematics". You know, the ususal way you get reliable numbers for reliable studies.
- - - Updated - - -
It has nothing to do with Chritianity, both the ten comandments and the guy "Chritianity" is named for made their stance on killing perfectly clear: DO NOT DO IT.
The 30-something number is totally made up too. Googled for 5 seconds and found an article (2010) stating that 20% of Swedes were pro death penalty if the crime was murder.
So... never?
- - - Updated - - -
That is to make sure there is no doubt.
- - - Updated - - -
Then you shoud (re)read this thread.
Here is one example found in just a few secs:
- - - Updated - - -
You seem to have a problem with reading and understanding texts written in the English language.
There are two major problems with the death penalty.
1) You are never completely certain if you have the right person. In the US alone, over 150 people who were on death row (i.e. they were going to be executed) were found to be innocent since 1973. That means a judge and jury thought they absolutely had the right person, but later evidence proved their innocence. At least 20 of those cases were due to DNA proving their evidence.
That doesn't mean that all the innocent people were found. We have, in all likelihood, executed many innocent people in the past, and even today. In the US, many prosecutors fight against using DNA evidence because they don't want the public to know that the system screwed up in the first place.
To put that in perspective, there have been less than 1,500 executions in the US since 1973. This means that over 10% of who we were going to execute were found to be innocent. When you are talking life and death, that is a terrible record. And, again, those are just the people we happen to know were innocent...almost certainly, some of the less than 1,500 people executed were absolutely innocent. It is entirely likely that 20% of people on death row are actually innocent.
This is the truth of the real world. The real world is not like the detective shows on TV. The world is not black and white despite how many people would like to think it is.
2) There is no gain in using the death penalty. It doesn't deter crime (it never has - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ter-criminals/ ), and only serves to satisfy a bloodlust or vengeance which is are not healthy feelings to be nurtured in a population. It provides pleasure to many spectators, and no one in their right mind should be encouraging such feelings over the killing of another human being.
There are a lot of other arguments against the death penalty, but those are the two big ones in my mind.
The biggest question that comes to my mind on this subject is "Why?". Why the interest in killing someone? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Lock them up...perhaps until they die if necessary. If they are found innocent later, they can be released...thus, simply jailing gives us the possibility of addressing a mistake. Capital punishment gives us no such opportunity.
And all of those were dictatorships? Curious, I thought one other prerequisite of joining the EU beside not having a death penalty was being a democracy...
Just as a hint for you to help you understand European languages better: "democratic" is not synonymous with "decided by referendum".
Short. No i do not. Inhuman acts shouldn't be answered with inhuman acts...
Inhumans can be killed without remorse, regret or anger.
A society that is allowed to collectively kill its members, for whatever reason, is fine - how? Also, how does it make it better than those who, they claim, "deserve" to die? If a person murdered someone, and you (society) murdered that person in turn, then shouldn't you be murdered too now, for consistency?