Hello Borakk
I have changed my debating style. I don’t like quoting long texts. ‘Your assumption’ summarizes your writings in previous context. ‘The FACT’ represents my arguments 
.
Your new style is arbitrary. You could have used "Alpha's arguments" instead, or "pros", "cons"... My posts were not "assumptions", they were FACTS. What, was I playing doll house all this time?
Whatever, I'll stick to the 'traditional' method, I'm quoting.
By the way, the bullet-like icon you see below "Change colour" is used for quoting.
The FACT: Wrong, it only deters crime in countries where it's carried out quickly and absolutely. In some countries if you are convicted of murder, you are taken outside and executed publicly, usually within 24 hours. This deters serious criminals who commit crimes, for sure. However, people of developed nations will never stand for this. We Bangladeshis do not support this. It is too cruel and inhumane for us. I don’t think Mauritians will like it too. So, this method of execution will not be employed by most countries, due to public opposition. Therefore, this assumption is made unrealistic.
Just a small simple question:
when did I say that criminals should be executed on public roads or streets?
Yes, I'm advocating capital punishment, but I haven't dictated any procedures. Criminals can be killed in different ways: hanging, execution, poison, etc. The public execution that you are talking about mostly happens in Arabia, not in Bangladesh or in Mauritius. You Bangladeshis do not support this, that makes absolutely no difference to the Arabian King. Every country suits itself. (Therefore, your "FACT" is made unrealistic.)
"It is too cruel and inhumane"--- here I would like to poke my nose a lil bit. It is too cruel and inhumane to kill a criminal in public, to be mentioned, lawfully and judgmentally? Is it humane to 'hunt' an innocent with a samurai in public? Where does your 'citizenship' go then when the victims are running in the streets all bloody with parts of their bodies broken?
"This deters serious criminals who commit crimes, for sure." Okay, you agreed. Good then, I will not have to explain my 'rational' again.
The FACT: Unfortunately, it costs dramatically more to kill those same criminals. The typical death penalty conviction must go through several levels of appeal. All these appeals must be heard by the courts in virtually every case. Attorneys and solicitors are paid dramatically more than prison guards. One prison guard is responsible for several prisoners, where one prisoner on death row typically employs several attorneys and legal staff for many years, all while still using your tax money in prison. Life sentences are rarely appealed. The typical life span in prison is about two dozen years. Interestingly, many of the most violent prisoners get murdered in prison.
You just mentioned above that public execution is usually carried out within 24 hours. And you mentioned here the typical lifespan in prison is about 24 years (2 dozen). The difference between hours and years is not small, is it? 24 hours make a day. One common year consists of 365 days. Supposing a day per prisoner costs $ 1. The ratio, for the time spent in prison after trial, would look somehow like this:
Death penalty : Life imprisonment
1 : 8766
Now countries have a choice: sensitive hearts or sensitive pockets.
"Attorneys and solicitors are paid dramatically more than prison guards." So, does it mean that a criminal's case is permanently closed if he is sentenced to life imprisonment? Why are you comparing the cost to only the earnings of prison guards? What about food, repairs and maintenance costs of prison cells,
attorneys and solicitors paid dramatically to get the criminals in and out repeatedly, etc? Think about the number of crimes that can be prevented if the death penalty is implemented, and the cost that can be saved therein.
Besides, I had also mentioned about poor, desperate people trying to get themselves a place in jails when they cannot find a place in our routine world. Favouring life imprisonment is going to spread this 'infection'. Treating this 'infection' is going to be more costly even.
"Many of the most violent prisoners get murdered in prison."
Or is it the other way around? Many violent prisoners murder the inferior ones. You raise another point for me:
keeping violent criminals in prison is a danger to the other prisoners.
Another unfortunate fact that I have to mention is that, though I tried my best to make you understand that it is the percentage of GDP which counts, still you are not agreeing with me. Just have a look at Bloomberg or any other business channel. Or have a look at any advanced economics book or even newspapers. When government expenditures are mentioned, the percentage of GDP that they occupy is given more importance, rather than the sum or its opportunity costs.
FYI, I am an Economics and Business Studies student myself. And I know why figures are compared using the percentage method. What I am trying to tell you since a long time: get OUT of your books and face the harsh reality. To compare figures using the percentage method is more of politics than business.
These comparisons play with the psychology of citizens, of nations. A sum is compared to the GDP to make it seem much minor than it actually is.
If, as you say, the money spent on prisons is not a big deal for America, then why not give this money to under-developed countries as grants? Sure, $ 28.4 billion, which is not a big deal to America, makes a BIG difference to the lives of the poor.
Again, I will talk about justice and social security, briefly this time.
"Iron cuts iron" (loha lohe ko kaatta hain
)
Get rid of weeds because plants and flowers need to blossom in a place safe for them.
Fortunately, the death penalty has not been abolished by some countries. Or else, today we would still be having utterly dangerous criminals like Saddam Hussein (just an example, no offence meant) alive. And millions of people would be losing their lives because of ONE man.
Best of luck! (for criticizing my arguments !!!)
I'm not a fan of luck.
If you didn't know, well now you do. Nevertheless, thank you.
P.S. I like debating with you too. Your enthusiasm is good. Hehe, within limits*.
P.P.S. My apologies, kept you waiting. Had a peak period.
