Death Penalty Opposed by Victim's Families...

The attached link presents a letter from the families of victims of serious crimes to the Maryland General Assembly in opposition of the death penalty in their State. In it, they provide their reasons why they oppose the death penalty. You would think that a victim's family would be the LAST person/people who would oppose it--but instead, are advocating for life without parole as punishment. This exerpt justifies their train of thought:

"To be meaningful, justice should be swift and sure. Life without parole, which begins immediately, is both of these; the death penalty is neither. Capital punishment drags victims' loved ones through an agonizing and lengthy process, holding out the promise of one punishment in the beginning and often resulting in a life sentence in the end anyway. A life without parole sentence for killers right from the start would keep society safe, hold killers responsible for their brutal and depraved acts, and would start as soon as we left the courtroom instead of leaving us in limbo.
At the same time, a system of life without parole in place of the death penalty would save scarce funds. As Maryland taxpayers, we have spent millions of dollars and diverted endless hours of court and law enforcement time since capital punishment was reinstated in Maryland. What has it bought us? Years worth of appeals and overturned sentences that have clogged our courts and a system so broken that fixing it is probably impossible - all for what? Five executions that took decades to achieve."

This article strikes me as an appeal based on sympathy, rather than facts. The end of the article is "signed" by all the families and lists the family members who have been killed--that tugged at my heart. It makes me feel sorry for these people and the horror they must have went through in the judicial process. However, this article doesn't present any factual data or figures to show us the cost anaylsis and benefit, which is what seems to be their holding point.

Many advocates of the death penalty argue these points: 1) An eye for an eye and 2) It's cheaper to kill them (inmates) than to keep them alive and provide them with housing, food, employment, etc for years and years.

There are over 3300 inmates on death row and there are 38 states that allow the death penalty, according to NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. In 2007, only 42 were executed. If the death penalty was abolished, the implications for society would likely be minimal. When so few are being executed, it certainly doesn't seem like we are really saving any money anyway?

Keeping the death penalty does not deter anyone from killing and it isn't serving the purpose, but I would not want to be a jury or the "executioner." I am not saying we shouldn't have it, I feel the problem is with the legal system and the number of appeals inmates have that prolongs the process and increases the costs.

I agree with several of the points the writer is making, such as the prolonged pain the victims family has to go through during the appeals process, but the article lacks evidence to support their claims to abolish the death penalty.

http://www.mdcase.org/node/124