The police chiefs ranked the death penalty as the least efficient use of taxpayers' money. They rated expanded training and more equipment for police officers; hiring more police officers; community policing; more programs to control drug and alcohol abuse; and neighborhood watch programs as more efficient uses of taxpayers' dollars.
Since the death penalty is no deterrent to criminals, it would be best to "execute" what the police chiefs think might help.What is more beneficial to society? Measures such as the above being implemented or keeping the death penalty?
Get people off drugs and there'll be fewer crimes being committed. That and other proposed measures I believe would be more effective at reducing crime.Abusers of particular drugs may commit violent crimes, and distribution of drugs can lead to violent crimes.
There's an article I read somewhere which seemed to suggest that many police chiefs [do not] support the death penalty. I suppose that since they don't, most cops might also feel the same way.
I can understand it not being a great use of taxpayer funds. Prisoners sit on death row for years and years, and the appeals process is long and expensive. But I wonder if they have moral issues with it, considering the heinous crimes that are committed in our society.
I doubt that the issue of morality ever weighs down on them. While yes I admit that someone who murders another ought to be executed I think the fact the jailed criminals are "out of circulation" is good enough for cops.I can understand it not being a great use of taxpayer funds. Prisoners sit on death row for years and years, and the appeals process is long and expensive. But I wonder if they have moral issues with it, considering the heinous crimes that are committed in our society.