NationStates Jolt Archive

Life in prison vs. Death penalty. I think I would prefer death, but I'm against the death penalty on moral grounds. I don't think the state should kill it's citizens as punishment, and a locked up criminal in a well run prison is no longer a threat. Still, I would hate to be locked up with no chance of parole.

I am opposed to the death penalty because I think it is too humane for real murderers, innocent people often get put to death because they couldn't afford the best lawyer, and it doesn't appear to deter crime at all. If a person is willing to take someone else's life, I don't think they're too worried about their own death, and so it doesn't really punish them.

The Death Penalty is technically more "humane", but death is too good a punishment for the f--ks who have been proven w/o a doubt to be guilty

Well the death penalty's problem is that if the case is overthrown, you can't exactly release them.

I and my party favour forced labour in Antarctica coupled with rehabilitation. If you really are a complete psychotic, you work 'till you die.

Life without parole is a death sentence. A very long and cruel way to kill someone.

Life without parole is a death sentence. A very long and cruel way to kill someone.

Not to mention it costs us tax payers several thousand a month to keep the prisoners in jail.

Life in jail is too nice to give some criminals. Think about it, you get free cable, free food, free gym use, free housing and only a slight possibility of being sodomized. That is better than quite a few law abiding citizens' lives.

I would think real conservatives would oppose the death penalty because it give the government too much power. What is more powerful than having the ability to decide whether or not a person lives or dies?

I guess this is a good question, maybe ability for parole should be mandatory, I personally can't decide, though I would rather be killed in a few minutes than live my life in the knowledge that I have nothing to hope for.

Bit from column A a bit of Column B
I say mostly prison but youve got to have chain gangs
they have to tear down hills break rocks build roads etc
they have to reimburse society for what theyve done

15 years lee-way just in case someone is innocent and if they cant prove their innocence then you can lop they really bad ones heads off

I would think real conservatives would oppose the death penalty because it give the government too much power. What is more powerful than having the ability to decide whether or not a person lives or dies?

The government doesn't decide. A jury of your peers does.

Jurys have nothing to do with sentencing, thats a judges role.

Well, let's say someone is convicted on charges that would warrant a death penalty AND are sentenced to life in prison (assuming there is no death penalty). Would you support allowing the person to accept the death penalty as a choice if they want?

Jurys have nothing to do with sentencing, thats a judges role.

You're kinda right. In a case where the death penalty is an option it will be decided by a jury of your peers whether or not you get death or life without a parole. I believe anyother time it is strictly up to a judge, but not death. However the judge can change the sentence but he/she needs to have a very good and convincing reason in order to do so, not just that it goes against his/her morals.

Well, let's say someone is convicted on charges that would warrant a death penalty AND are sentenced to life in prison (assuming there is no death penalty). Would you support allowing the person to accept the death penalty as a choice if they want?

No, I wouldn't. It would defeat of the object of a judge imposing a sentence and the idea of punishement if the convict gets to choose their sentence, even if both/all of the choices are punishments.

New Genoa - No. Life is more Humane, yet at the same time is crueller.

one quote I sometimes agree with
Death should be a release, not a punshment.

And that is because our prisons should become a workcamp - and if your trail is overturned, the state can retroactivly pay you for your labour. Work till you drop, or until your time is up. Death is just too messy - what if he was actually innocent?

Well, the thing about this is, with the death penalty there's a chance that an innocent person could be put to death... and then the argument of the inhumanity of life in prison. This would be a compromise of sorts unless you just want absolute no or absolute yes on the death penalty. What does it matter anyway when you're dead?...

I voted number two because of my idea of "prison" is so emotionally shattering the prisoners will be begging for death after a year.

Basically: 10' x 10' x 10' cube with a toilet, toilet paper, a little light above it, and no human contact at all. Food is passed through an "air-lock" system so the person never sees outside light.

They'll go insane after a year or so.

That's what prison for lifers should be like. So death *would* be more humane.

It costs the taxpayers more to put someone to death than keep them in jail for life. Get your facts straight.

How is it not hypocritical to kill someone because they killed someone? If murder is a crime, then why are we committing it against those who have? doesn't make any sense.

Plus, the system is obviously flawed. Just look at the ratio of black death sentences per capita compaired to white death sentences.

br

Jurys have nothing to do with sentencing, thats a judges role.

Not for felonies. The jury also decides the sentence.

The death penalty is an outdated phenomenon, and should no longer be used. Locking someone up for the rest of their lives is harsh enough.

It costs the taxpayers more to put someone to death than keep them in jail for life. Get your facts straight.

Show me the numbers. Life in prison is a long time let's estimate 60 years. Do you know how much it costs to keep someone alive? You have to pay for the building, which could have been occupied by many other people over the 60 years if he was put to death. You have to pay for 60 years of food, let's see, three meals a day, 365 days a year, that comes out to 65,700 meals, that's assuming they don't eat one day every four years. Then you have to pay for their medical bills for the 60 years. Plus the basic utilities that a person uses. That comes out to a lot of money. How much does it cost to put a person to death? Not much. You got about 13 years in prison and then another 3 grand to actually kill them. Much cheaper than paying for 60 years, especially since you would be avoiding the big medical bills.

So someone needs to get their facts straight, but it is most certainly not me.

"Not for felonies. The jury also decides the sentence"

Only in America

How is it not hypocritical to kill someone because they killed someone? If murder is a crime, then why are we committing it against those who have? doesn't make any sense.


Now this is a decent point. The thing is that person took a person's life because he wanted to. That is why those who kill others in self defense do not get as harsh sentences as other murderers.

Plus, the system is obviously flawed. Just look at the ratio of black death sentences per capita compaired to white death sentences.

Ever think that maybe more black people committed murder? White people tend to stick to either white collar crimes (embezlment, insider trading) or the very rare serial murderer. Black people tend to do more violent crimes (robbery, murder).

It costs the taxpayers more to put someone to death than keep them in jail for life. Get your facts straight.

I assume you're talking about the maintenance of the convicts whilst they're on Death Row. If not, then that's one hell of a costly lethal injection or electricty provider.

Cost of a death penalty:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial%20facts
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
http://www.bushkills.com/facts.html
http://archive.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html#incarceration

Black/White convict rate:

Ok, putting aside your racist and stereotyped non-factual remarks on race related crimes, lets look at a few things:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=105&scid=5
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/racialprejudices.html
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510462003
http://www.mumia2000.org/race&injustice.html

need more facts? just ask.

Looks like you need to get the facts straight.

It's always interesting to hear someone to generalize anything onto a group of people based on the color of their skin. We like to believe our racism left with the 60's, but it's still rampant in today's society. It's ok though. Don't feel bad. Lot's of other people are like you. I'm not expecting the world to change overnight. Rather we just need more institutions dedicated to talking with people with your beliefs and sorting out a few issues. The government can't stop racism. People need to take the initiative.

:) br

If prisoners thought prison was unbearable, they could kill themselves while in prison.

Most don't.

Most of the expenses for inmates on death row comes from legal things and you could save alot on medical treatment of lifers if you limited it to basic care, unless someone else cared enough for them to keep them in jail longer.

Quote:

Life in prison vs. Death penalty

They do not excist in my country, and I thank god that we never will. We are civilized, crimes are low and we take care of the poor people. Why should I want to choose between stupidity and even more stupidity?

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

"Not for felonies. The jury also decides the sentence"

Only in America

Yes, sorry I assumed you were American. I am Canadian, and I wish it was this way. Our judges suck.

Life in prison vs. Death penalty. I think I would prefer death, but I'm against the death penalty on moral grounds.


Wait until you have to make the choice before deciding. You may well change your mind.

I do support the death penalty in certian cases however.

Wait until you have to make the choice before deciding. You may well change your mind.

I do support the death penalty in certian cases however.


in what instances?

br

Not to mention it costs us tax payers several thousand a month to keep the prisoners in jail.

Life in jail is too nice to give some criminals. Think about it, you get free cable, free food, free gym use, free housing and only a slight possibility of being sodomized. That is better than quite a few law abiding citizens' lives.

I worked in a maximum security prison for several years and I never heard of a prison with cable television. A lot of inmates didn't even have TVs. The rest of your statement is fairly correct. I don't recommend eating the food though. Worst food in the world and you never know what the inmate cooks are putting in it. One correctional officer was given a mouse sandwich.

I say fry the bastards. Why waste taxpayer money on people who would think nothing of killing you if they had the chance. Anyone who has committed first degree murder should get the death penalty automatically. If they applied it fairly and consistantly maybe it would be more of a deterent. The odds of getting the death penalty in a murder case is roughly the same as being struck by lightning. Not often enough to deter the crime.

in what instances?

br

I can't honestly say that if we'd caught Hitler at the end of WWII, he wouldn't have deserved it.

Generally, anyone with mass-murdering tendencies.

It costs the taxpayers more to put someone to death than keep them in jail for life. Get your facts straight.

How is it not hypocritical to kill someone because they killed someone? If murder is a crime, then why are we committing it against those who have? doesn't make any sense.

Plus, the system is obviously flawed. Just look at the ratio of black death sentences per capita compaired to white death sentences.

br

What makes you think it costs more to put some one to death than to keep him in prison? That is just silly. It costs tens of thousands of dollars a year to keep someone in jail. It costs a few dollars to put them to death. Where is your cost savings?

It is not murder to kill a convicted murderer, it is justice. There is a difference. You could look at it as societal self defence. If you let the prisoner live, and they escape, they could kill again. If they are dead society is that much safer.

As to the fairness of the system you are right. It is not fair, but the death penalty is not to blame for the unfairness. It is the justice system that is to blame. There are more black people on death row than whites. There are also more black murderers. For every crime, (with the exception of white collar crime) not just murder, there are more black prisoners than white. This has more to do with social status than skin color. Poor people have to use public defenders. There are more poor blacks than whites. Therefore more convictions for black offenders. A public defender juggles many cases at the same time. They do not have the time to properly prepare for any client. so your odds of being convicted are much higher with a public defender than a hired lawyer. I don't have the solution to this problem any more than the next guy, but we can't toss out the punishment because the system is flawed. If everyone convicted of murder in the first degree was put to death you would see more white people executed as well as more black.
The whole system needs to be overhauled. But don't expect that to happen in any of our lifetimes.

What makes you think it costs more to put some one to death than to keep him in prison? That is just silly. It costs tens of thousands of dollars a year to keep someone in jail. It costs a few dollars to put them to death. Where is your cost savings?

look at my reply just after that message. Then you decide.

br

Cost of a death penalty:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial%20facts
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
http://www.bushkills.com/facts.html
http://archive.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html#incarceration

Black/White convict rate:

Ok, putting aside your racist and stereotyped non-factual remarks on race related crimes, lets look at a few things:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=105&scid=5
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/racialprejudices.html
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510462003
http://www.mumia2000.org/race&injustice.html

need more facts? just ask.

Looks like you need to get the facts straight.

It's always interesting to hear someone to generalize anything onto a group of people based on the color of their skin. We like to believe our racism left with the 60's, but it's still rampant in today's society. It's ok though. Don't feel bad. Lot's of other people are like you. I'm not expecting the world to change overnight. Rather we just need more institutions dedicated to talking with people with your beliefs and sorting out a few issues. The government can't stop racism. People need to take the initiative.

:) br

Your first source was quoted as saying that "no reliable data exists concerning the cost of prosecution or defense of first-degree murder cases in Tennessee," and "Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment." This only means that the trial itself is more expensive, NOT the total costs of keeping someone in prison vs putting them to death.

Your second is a bunch of conclusions from a bunch of studies but not the studies themselves. Statistics are fine but without knowing how the studies are conducted the conclusions, selected out of context, are highly suspicious.

Ditto for the third.

The fourth: Do you seriously expect someone to rely on data from a site that is titled "BUSH KILLS". Oh yeah I'm sure that will be a fair analysis. I don't like Bush but REALLY?

The ACLU site is pretty much the same as the two and three, only fewer sources.

I'm not saying they are wrong. But none of these sources are unbiased. They took a stand and only published sources that backed they're positions. Very interesting though. I wonder why so much more trouble is gone through in capital cases. It seems to me that if the intent is to convict the right person these resources should be provided in all murder cases. Although I suppose most of them are plea bargained so this is not necessary.

As for the bottom set of sources, I more or less agreed with your post to begin with. I glanced at them but not in enough detail to judge. I still feel that ALL those who commit murder deserve to die for they're crimes. It may or may not be economically feesible, but it will take more convincing than an economic analysis, or a some worries about the ethics of execution. Killing people who have no ethics...I can live with that.

The best argument for me would be based on the percentage of convicted murderers who are later found to be innocent, not "Not guilty", there is a big difference (I'm talking DNA testing, someone else admits to the crime, etc). If it is more than one in five hundred you may swing me back over to your side.(I've gone back and forth on this for years.

It would be most humane, if the criminals decide.

Jurys have nothing to do with sentencing, thats a judges role.

Hmm I'd sort of like it if the murderer person got to choose. I mean, all that really matters is the guy's removal from society, right? SO why does it matter how it happens? They both have their pros and cons. And it's entirely conceivable that a criminal would choose either one.

As for which one is more humane... that REALLY depends on the jail, I mean if they're going to Martha's place, then I'd say the death sentence, but if you're getting like isolation in some penitintiary then I'd say that'd be less humane.

I worked in a maximum security prison for several years and I never heard of a prison with cable television. A lot of inmates didn't even have TVs. The rest of your statement is fairly correct. I don't recommend eating the food though. Worst food in the world and you never know what the inmate cooks are putting in it. One correctional officer was given a mouse sandwich.

I have an Uncle who works at a local jail and I have visited him a couple times there. At that particular jail I know they have cable tv. The food isn't all that bad either. So I'm just basind that off of personal experience.

Hmm I'd sort of like it if the murderer person got to choose. I mean, all that really matters is the guy's removal from society, right? SO why does it matter how it happens?

The problem is that the murderers could escape, or kill more people while in jail. If you kill them then they would not be able to do these things.

Everyone is arguing about why execution is inhuman. Let's take a look at the other side. How humane is life in prison without parole? Everyday being locked up in a tiny cell only being let out to eat. Not being able to go outside and interact with the rest of the world, even though you can see it right there, just outside your barred cell window. Spending year after year in prison with no hope of getting out, unless you try to escape, slowly withering away into a shell of your former self. And then you die anyways, after spending 60 years in jail, always so close to freedom, but never getting to enjoy it. How nice is that?

What I don't get is why isolation is considered such a harsh penalty. I for one would prefer maximum isolation should I ever wind up in prison. If I had to be placed in the general population I'd much prefer being sentenced to immediate death. Hell, I'd try to make the bailif have to pull out his gun and kill me right there in the courtroom. I know some would argue that this would be harsh on the bailif, but I'd be heading off to prisonland. Screw him!

(No sarcasm this time)

obvisosly death.if justise is immoral those who seek it deserve justise as well.
vengence is not justise,to cause undue suffering is wrong.put two and two together here.to sentence someone to life in prison is causeing them undue suffering.thus by sentenceing them in such a way,you are just as evil.

If anyone has been in a prison you'll notice it isnt a nice place and that it is hellish. Not all prisoners have the same things or access to whatever they want. in liverpool prison there is no library and the prisoners are dependant on family members giving them books and such like.
The lifers wing is bettr the the rest of the prison largely because its calmer. The prisoners have no release dates and they have to take part in courses to even be considered for release. Some of the prisoners wish thay had got death as what they are living is hell-personally I think that is a good thing. They should have to live with their crime.

If anyone has been in a prison you'll notice it isnt a nice place and that it is hellish. Not all prisoners have the same things or access to whatever they want. in liverpool prison there is no library and the prisoners are dependant on family members giving them books and such like.
The lifers wing is bettr the the rest of the prison largely because its calmer. The prisoners have no release dates and they have to take part in courses to even be considered for release. Some of the prisoners wish thay had got death as what they are living is hell-personally I think that is a good thing. They should have to live with their crime.

Sounds very similar to U.S. prisons. Although they do get exercise periods out in the "Yard" and generally better access to a library. It is hard enough to work in a prison. I burned out after a few years. The overall hardness and despair of a prison is hard to stay around for long, I can't imagine having to live there. I had constant nightmares the whole time I worked there and for MANY years after.

There are a lot of suicides that occur in prison especially around the holidays. I don't think the average person can understand how hard it is to live in those conditions.

Nothing is more humane than death by Gallagher. Although it may be a bit messy.

The Death Penalty is technically more "humane", but death is too good a punishment for the f--ks who have been proven w/o a doubt to be guilty
I concur, a humane death is MUCH too good for them. A long life of pure agony should await them.

I don't understand... If we, as a society, kill someone as a punishment, how does that make us different than the criminal we are killing? What then prevents an individual from deciding that it's ok to kill someone as long as it's a punishment? Just because it's done by the government doesn't make killing someone any more justifiable.

look at my reply just after that message. Then you decide.

br
I went back and looked at your first source again. I found this quote in a PDF file: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/MassCostTestimony.pdf

"The most comprehensive study conducted in this country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty system imposing a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life. These findings are sensitive to the number of executions the state carries out. However the authors note that even if the death penalty was 100% efficient, i.e., if every death sentence resulted in an execution, the extra costs to the taxpayers would stll be $216,000 per execution."

So the trick is to make the process more efficient not to eliminate the death penalty. $216,000 is equivalent to the cost of 10 or less years in jail. So if we could make it 90% efficient there would still be a huge cost savings with the death penalty. And since my arguement is that all people who commit first degree murder should be executed - the more people you execute the more $$$ you would save.

This is why I hate statistics as bullet points. They are meaningless unless you get the whole story.

I don't understand... If we, as a society, kill someone as a punishment, how does that make us different than the criminal we are killing? What then prevents an individual from deciding that it's ok to kill someone as long as it's a punishment? Just because it's done by the government doesn't make killing someone any more justifiable.

If someone kidnaps someone and holds them against their will for 20 years. How are we any better if we imprison him for 20 years for this crime.
Punishment should fit the crime. Society didn't put that knife or gun in their hands so society should not be at fault if the ultimate punishment is carried out. This decision was made by the criminal who full well knew the possible penalty.

I will admit. When it comes to costs, anyone can manipulate figures to look advantagiously to their side.

But i still just don't understand how someone could say, "I believe everyone that kills someone deserves to die." What about mentally-ill people? What about people with psychological problems.

What if your brother, sister, mom, dad, son, daughter, or anyone you know happened to kill someone someday. Would you want them to be killed for what they did? Most of you might think, "Yeah right. They'd never kill anyone." But so do the families of people who commit the terrible crime. Have some heart. This is someone's life we're talking about. These people have families, kids, jobs, etc. just like the rest of us.

I just see the pro-death penalty stance as a cowboyish/superhero lets-avenge-the-dead type of attitude. Plus it puts full confidence in our justice system, implying that juries will be 100% correct in their decisions.

I just can't see myself supporting anything that will possibly put an innocent person's life in jeopardy. Or anybody for that matter.

br

I don't think everyone who killed someone deserves to die. Only those who premeditate their murders, who plan them out, deserve to die. Those who murder in self-defense, the mentally ill(generally not able to plan), and the insane (not mentally capable), do not deserve to die. I can honestly say that if one of my family members or someone I know killed someone and their is irrefutable evidence to that fact, they do very much deserve the harshest penalty possible. Not only would they have murdered someone but they would have dishonored the family. I would request to be the executioner if at all possible.

And you still have pointed out really how life in prison is more humane than the death penalty, which is the real question here.

I think it's up to the person convicted of the crime to decides what happens to their life. It's not our decision to decide what the most humaine way for them to live.

Just like doctor-assisted euthanasia. Should be legal if the patient really wants it. But before any of this goes down, there should be _thorough_ psychological examination into the matter. The person must be deemed mentally stable.

Also, if the psychologically-ill are exempt from capital punishment, that, technically, would include everybody who commits the crime. Unless someone wants to argue that any murderer does not have something wrong with them psychologically. The DSM itself suggests that anyone committing murder, or harm to themselves, others, animals is considered to have a personality disorder. Murderers are victims themselves of things they can't control. They need help to. They shouldn't walk free or anything, but killing them seems the easy way out.

br

i don't see it as an issue. if some scrot has done something worthy of either, guaranteed life in prison with 0% chance of release outside of an urn full of ashes is the best way.
plus it allows for errors in the case to be corrected...

I will admit. When it comes to costs, anyone can manipulate figures to look advantagiously to their side.

But i still just don't understand how someone could say, "I believe everyone that kills someone deserves to die." What about mentally-ill people? What about people with psychological problems.

What if your brother, sister, mom, dad, son, daughter, or anyone you know happened to kill someone someday. Would you want them to be killed for what they did? Most of you might think, "Yeah right. They'd never kill anyone." But so do the families of people who commit the terrible crime. Have some heart. This is someone's life we're talking about. These people have families, kids, jobs, etc. just like the rest of us.

I just see the pro-death penalty stance as a cowboyish/superhero lets-avenge-the-dead type of attitude. Plus it puts full confidence in our justice system, implying that juries will be 100% correct in their decisions.

I just can't see myself supporting anything that will possibly put an innocent person's life in jeopardy. Or anybody for that matter.

br

The murder victim had families, kids, jobs, etc. just like the rest of us. They did not have a choice about being killed. The murderer had a choice and made it. In my mind he has signed his own death warrant.

If one of my family members murdered someone I would be upset if they were put to death, but I would also think about the person who was killed and the shame it brought to my family.

It seems the victims are the ones who receive no sympathy. Did they deserve to be murdered? Was it fair that their life was cut short? Is it fair that their family has to suffer? So why care what happens to the murderer? If someone can not live in our society without killing people what is the point of letting him live? He can't be returned into the public he can only be warehoused for the rest of his life. I feel no sympathy for murderers.

I have yet to address the theme of this thread. The death penalty is more humane. I have seen first hand the suffering inmates go through in sickning conditions with no hope of relief. I don't advocate death for that reason. The possibility that someday some judge may overturn their sentence on some technicality and let them back out amoung us sickens me. I have seen it happen. I also personally know at least one murderer (not a death row inmate) who escaped and, as far as I know, is running free now. If they were dead society would be safer.

ask condemned people. They vote for #1

I think it's up to the person convicted of the crime to decides what happens to their life. It's not our decision to decide what the most humaine way for them to live.

Just like doctor-assisted euthanasia. Should be legal if the patient really wants it. But before any of this goes down, there should be _thorough_ psychological examination into the matter. The person must be deemed mentally stable.

Also, if the psychologically-ill are exempt from capital punishment, that, technically, would include everybody who commits the crime. Unless someone wants to argue that any murderer does not have something wrong with them psychologically. The DSM itself suggests that anyone committing murder, or harm to themselves, others, animals is considered to have a personality disorder. Murderers are victims themselves of things they can't control. They need help to. They shouldn't walk free or anything, but killing them seems the easy way out.

br

There is a difference between between being psychologically ill and being mentally incompetent and the courts (with the possible exception of Texas) already take that into account.

Like another poster said, only premeditated murderers would be elligable for the death penalty.

Life in prison vs. Death penalty. I think I would prefer death, but I'm against the death penalty on moral grounds. I don't think the state should kill it's citizens as punishment, and a locked up criminal in a well run prison is no longer a threat. Still, I would hate to be locked up with no chance of parole.

If you are wrongfully convicted, you can be released from prison. There have been many wrongful convictions in death penalty cases, some postumously, which is why I support life in prison. I also agree with granting the power to the state the ability to terminate the lives of it's constituents.

PS, I know this was probably covered earlier in this thread, but I'm just adding my little bit.

[QUOTE=Roach Cliffs]If you are wrongfully convicted, you can be released from prison. There have been many wrongful convictions in death penalty cases, some postumously, which is why I support life in prison.

You are exactly right...people who are wrongfully convicted can be executed and surely have. The standard of proof in English common law countries (USA included) is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", not proof beyond all doubt. The latter would be impossible. To execute anyone is inhuman.

Someone earlier suggested that small-government proponents should be opposed to the death penalty on the grounds that government should not have the power to decide who lives and who dies. The problem with that argument is that it ignores the fact that murderers, thieves, rapists, vandals, trespassers, kidnappers, muggers, batterers, assaulters, burglars, and defrauders are NOT human, and so there is nothing wrong with government deciding the fate of such a creature.

i don't see it as an issue. if some scrot has done something worthy of either, guaranteed life in prison with 0% chance of release outside of an urn full of ashes is the best way.
plus it allows for errors in the case to be corrected...
Exactly my view, though I have occasionaly pondered if it would be possible to have them put under for the whole time, that way if they wind up innocent they can be released and wwon't have suffered through all those years, and if their guilty they simply never wake up. The biggest problem I can see with this, other than that I'm not sure it is possible, is if the innocent prisoner is a sleep than who's going to argue there case.