Originally Posted by Ltlabner
Land that could be use for more productive ventures is used by prisons. Society contines to pay and pay for the criminals behavior long after the crime was committed.
Execution puts a stop to all that nonsense.
Your argument--unless I am misinterpreting what you're saying--is that society is burdened by the cost of feeding and housing prisoners, and having land taken up by prisons versus alternatives. And that "executions put a stop to all of that nonsense." I could not disagree with you more.
To begin, the number of people who have committed crimes that would fall within the realm of being worthy of capital punishment are miniscule compared to the prison population as a whole. So executing more people isn't going to solve the problems you listed--assuming, of course, that we don't start executing people for theft or drug use or what have you.
Secondly, society does not pay merely to feed and house prisoners, it pays also to rehabilitate them. If society does not believe that rehabilitation is possible, then every criminal--regardless of offense--should simply be locked up for life. Releasing them back into the public at large would be a failure of the government to protect its citizenry.
Finally, you complain about the cost you, as a taxpayer, must pay to keep people like Couey alive in prison. But this neglects two things: one, the immense costs associated with placing someone on death row and subsequently executing them, and two, the fact that there are a number of people who object to the idea of their tax money being used to execute people.