Why are inmates kept on death row for so long?
551916
Here in California, defendants who receive the death penalty are entitled to an automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court.  It can take up to 3 years before an appellate attorney is event appointed and that's just the beginning of the avenues of appeal available to the defendant.\n\nCalifornia is also in the 9th federal circuit, which has earned a reputation as the being the most liberal federal Court of Appeal (and the one most often reversed by the Supreme Court).  In California one death penalty case, the Supreme Court finally issued and order to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal to stop issuing stays of execution for a person named Robert Alton Harris.
1148421
I don't believe in capital punishment.  I think it's a much greater punishment to let a criminal rot in hellish prisons for endless years.  It's in no way a deterent for capital crimes.
830582
Wealthy people don't get executed. Their lawyers can tie the sentences up in court for decades.
46990
Because sentencing a murderer to free food, free clothes, a free gym, free cable, and all the other things that the law-abiding have to work for (and if they cannot legally afford have to do without) does not seem like a punishment to me.\n\nThe only way I would agree with doing away  with the death penalty would be if prisons were actually a PUNISHMENT for the crime committed - meaning none of the above perks.  A small cell with a toilet and a sink.  Maybe, if they behave, once a week they can go for a stroll in the court yard for exercise.  But that's it.
555669
The basic laws of the country are breaking down and that is the problem..  The police can't get tough because they get sued.  It is just too much.  People on death row for 10 years.  They can't decide in 10 years if they are guilty or not.  The whole system is just in a state of non functioning.
448855
No, it isnt clemency.  A stay of execution granted by the governor is what happens with the gov. feels that there is some evidence that would point to the convicted person's innocence.  A stay of execution is just that - a stay.  Once the governor has enough time to look at the case and are not satisfied with the evidence, they can remove the stay of execution and reset the execution date.
82155
There are criminals who have committed seriously violent crimes who are deemed menaces to society. The object of prison is not only to punish, but to rehabilitate inmates. If an inmate is unable to be rehabilitated, there are two options: life imprisonment without parole, or the death penalty. It is very expensive to legally place someone on death row, It's not as though they are dragged out of court and immediately shot after 1 trial. Defendants are given every opportunity to cast doubt on their guilt, it has not always been this way. In some parts of the world, unfair trials are followed by immediate execution. \nThe death penalty may not be a good deterrent for violent crime but it is a fitting penalty for some and criminals are treated relatively well considering their treatment of the victims of their crimes.
307891
You can look at it 2 ways....not enough or too many.  But what difference does it make if nothing realistically happens to them on death row since they sit there for 20+ years not having to worry about the crime, their victims or their victims family, room, board, etc.  I think there are way too many appeals given, I mean come on 20+ years of appeals.
735479
It amuses and entrtains the public -- as it has from the beginning of time -- and helps cynical politicians to get elected. Other than that it doesn't accomplish much in this age of "life means life" and "life in prison without possibility of parole".\n\nAnd it costs the state far more than life imprisonment to accomplish. Appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, etc. are expensive. Capital trials have come near to bankrupting some small counties, which pay for trials but not for prisons.\n\nIf you are from the UK, forget it. Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, part of UK law under the Human Rights Act 1989, forbids the death penalty "under all circumstances".
715184
that is one way off lookin at it but the arguement against it could be.\n1. if the person was found innocent later on...they could be freed\n2. suffering for a life time much better than a quick death\n\ni have a solution...\n\nturn prisons into factories... like get them to make pillows....or bag up paper clips or something... that way they can "give back to society" and still suffer!... cos that wat it all about!
803282
What does that matter? They are being tried & convicted some to life in prison, some to death. Military prison is not like state prison either.
679483
Usually like 20 or so years. They can have up to three appeals, the first of which is free. Each of these is like a brand new trial. It takes so long because murder is not something to be taken lightly. The state is taking another human beings life (murder) and they want to make sure that they are executing the right person and that no more exonerating evidence shows up which has happened many times in the past.
832462
I totally agree. Sometimes i think maybe it would be good to make them sit their whole life and rot . If i had my choice, i would make the person stay alive so every day they can think about the choice they made! The death penalty seems to be a cop out. But others days my opinion changes...
674960
They are usually retained by the use of handcuffs and iron chains...depending on the situation as to why they are being imprisoned. Officers have to be careful as to how they handle the prisoner due to liability.
9586
You paint your question with too broad a stroke.\n\nWe kill some inmates because society has determined that certain criminals deserve death.  They deserve the greatest punishment that society can give when they commit certain capital crimes, like mass murder and rape.  To compare the justification behind the death penalty (a retributive form of punishing the guilty) with the justification behind refusing assisted suicide (a social policy norm) is improper.\n\nSociety (except at present Oregon) has placed a strict line between aiding death and allowing death.  In all states, an individual who is terminally ill may refuse medical treatment.  Refusal of medical treatment may result in death, and often does.  For some, it is more painful to continue to live, and they'd prefer to hasten death.\n\nSociety has made a judgment that the doctor's role should be to heal, not to kill.  Assisting death is just too horrible for society to handle at this stage, and in my opinion, rightly.  However, the justifications for capital punishment and assisted suicide are very different and should not be so easily conflated.
107856
if it was a murder they did when they were in their twenties, and they are in their 70's, there really isnt much harm in releasing them. However, if they are like tookie williams who can still give orders to a gang or a mob, then by all means, yes keep him in jail for life.
1174324
i think death row is good the prisons have become too leniant