Argument of fact, the death penalty, is it more expensive than life in Essay

Argument of fact, the death penalty, is it more expensive than life in prison - Essay Example However, spending five million dollars from the pocket of the tax payer’s pocket for punishing a single criminal seems to be too much. Many Americans believe that even a small percentage of money spent for the execution of Bundy was enough for meeting the full expenses of keeping Bundy in jail for his entire life span. Taking the life of a criminal or giving capital punishment to a criminal is an easy act- just put the criminal in an electric chair for a while. However the lengthy criminal procedures till that period is the most expensive part of a capital punishment. Life is the most precious thing in this world and nobody, even the court, has the right to take it without adequate reasons. Under no circumstances, an innocent should be punished which is the core principle of criminal justice system. Under such circumstances double checking or triple checking is necessary before giving capital punishments to a criminal. The criminal can appeal against his punishment many times citing many reasons. All such appeals will result in the repetition of the court procedures many times. All these activities are highly expensive because of the expert services required for these procedures from professionals like, advocates, juries, investigating officers, forensic experts, witnesses etc. In this paper, I argue that death penalty is far more expensive compared to other means of punishments with the help of facts and figures. When initially looking at the costs involved in the actual execution of an inmate, the cost appears to be relatively cheap. In the state of Florida, an execution costs less than $1,000 dollars. So, why capital punishment cases are costing millions more than life in prison? The answer is simple; the actual execution of an inmate is quick and simple whereas the capital punishment system is far more complex. â€Å"The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial proces s for capital cases† (The High Cost of Death Penalty). The very structure of capital cases is one reason why the cost greatly exceeds those of noncapital cases. In 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court approved the principles which, in its opinion, would make the death penalty constitutional. (The Supreme Court) specified that (1) the sentencing in such cases must be done in trials that are separate from the trials which determine guilt or innocence; ( 2) the sentencing hearing must examine both mitigating and aggravating factors, including pertinent features of the defendant's life and character as well as the conditions of the crime; and ( 3) each death sentence must be followed by an automatic right of appeal to the highest state court. Due to these U.S. Supreme Court mandates, capital cases will spend years, even decades in the courts and in appeals, all the while passing the bill on to the tax payers. If these sentences were commuted to life in prison without the possibility of par ole, these mandated additional trials and appeals would be eliminated, thus greatly lowering the burden to taxpayers. Before the finalizing of capital punishment, the criminal went through a series of expensive trial procedures to reconfirm the punishment. It includes complex and expensive appeal process, evidence gathering, investigations etc. Moreover, mandatory review of all the death sentences by the state supreme court is necessary. If the criminal

Commercial Law Case Analysis Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Commercial Law Analysis - Case Study Example The impact point on the ground should have been with fine beach sand. In this case, this was not to be found. The ground was semi-hard to hard up to a height of 0.3m and harder beyond this height. A series of studies were done to find out whether the hardness of the impacting surface could have any effect on the damage done to his skill. The research did prove that this was true. The harder the surface, the damage is hard. There should have been beach sand in the pit at least up to a depth of 0.3 m. This was not to be found. The Respondent's reason for his head having to impact the ground first was also found to be not in consonance with the scientific evidence at hand. There is a possibility that the Respondent was traveling upside down for such a large impact to happen. At the trial court, the trial Judge offered compensation to the Respondent and held valid the claim that the damage to the Respondent is due to the negligence of the City. The City has moved the appellate court subsequently as an appeal over the decision made by the trial court. Summary of Decision: The Judges in the Appeal court considered the following stance and the facts above to come to a conclusion on the case: 1. The Judges found that this was a case under the causation principle. The Appellant, in this case, is liable only if the damage is caused by the negligent act of the Appellant of the case. And it is the onus of the Respondent to prove that the act did cause the damage.2. The negligent act of the Appellant need not be the sole cause of the damage. It could have materially contributed to the loss or damage to the Respondent.