Poet,
I remember reading somewhere (and I can't remember where) that it costs a hell of a lot of money to execute prisoners too, though. I guess that figure took into consideration the cost of all the appeals and the fees of all the personnel, legal and otherwise, who were involved in the prisoner's life prior to the execution.
One has to to remember that a lot of the stated costs of all of the personnel would be there whether the person was executed or not.
It's a lot like the people that are fighting the current war.
We have to remember that these people are "on the payroll" whether or not they are fighting.
It's like when I hear reports the liberals are spewing about what the current war is costing.
We would be paying the salaries of the soldiers whether they were fighting or not. Granted, they get combat pay. But I would like to know what the cost of the war is above and beyond what we would be paying anyway. IOW, for them to sit on their butts.
IMHO, the "cost" of the war is in the cost of the bombs we are dropping and the fuel we are using.
Most of the other costs were already there.
To get back to my point, if we executed individuals that were deemed by a jury of their peers to be drain on society, would you not think it to be good for society?
If not, why not?
Phil
Market Data 
Markets 
