Death is more economical.
Why pay tens of thousands to support him in prison when you can spend a few cents on a bullet to just put him down?
Society shouldn't have to pay for his crimes as well...especially in the literal sense...
Obviously he's human waste, I think sympathy is too good for him.
Might make me a jerk, but I would expect no less for myself, my family or anyone else...
The problem is that in most cases you don't know for sure if you got the right human waste.
Believe it or not, the justice system isn't infallible. People are more often than not convicted based on circumstantial or outright shoddy evidence, and on a burden of proof that is hardly more than "well, can you support another possibility?"
There have been people convicted for homicide on as thorough a lack of evidence as that nurse who went to jail just because more people died during her watch than on the watch of the other nurses. Absolutely no evidence, no motive, nothing else than a mild statistical fluke. She was working in ER, BTW, so, you know, that might have played a role too.
There are real examples like:
- Charles Fain exonerated and freed after almost 18 bloody years on Idaho's death row. A conviction based on a shoddy testimony and in spite of Fain's having an alibi and several witnesses for the time the crime happened. Turns out that when they finally tested the evidence for DNA, it wasn't him after all.
- Miguel Roman who was exonerated after serving 20 years of a 60 years murder sentence. Again, he's a fine example of how you can be sentenced based on shoddy evidence. An actual FBI investigator had testified at his trial that their tests had already elliminated him as a suspect. The jury convicted him anyway.
- Kirk Bloodsworth, the first man exonerated by DNA testing, but not before spending 9 years in jail and 2 years on the death row for a murder he did not commit.
- Barry Gibbs, freed after 19 years in jail, after the only witness against him admitted that he had been coerced by the cops to essentially commit perjury
- Cameron Todd Willingham, convicted in 1992 and executed in 2004 for the murder of his own children via arson. Based on nothing more than the testimony of an "expert witness" that the fire couldn't have been accidental. In 2006 the evidence was submitted to the Texas Forensic Science Commission. They found that not only the fire was accidental, but the testimony of that "forensic expect" at his trial was scientifically invalid. Once you removed the BS, there was _no_ evidence against him at all. Exonerated, but too bad they had executed him already.
- Ernest Willis, served 17 years for arson, based on a similar "forensic expert" testimony, that was proven to be just as bogus by the same commission.
Etc.
So, really, the question isn't whether you should let a murderer live, but whether you're comfortable with the idea that several innocents can be executed for something they did not do, based on shoddy circumstantial evidence.
One guy in the above list was actually executed for the accidental death of his children, FFS, as if said death wasn't grief enough for a parent.
Ok, so he's been exonerated. Too bad they already killed him, eh? You can't resurrect him.
