Appeals exist for a reason and your simplification of the problem is not an actual solution. I'm talking about people like the West Memphis Three who were incarcerated for 20 years and then acquitted.
This is exactly why we shouldn't have jails.
"If they are innocent, we can let them out, later." This sort of bargaining for guilt is common place in the current criminal justice system.
Technically, if there isn't enough evidence to kill them, there isn't enough evidence to fine them for a parking ticket, either. Realistically, it's easier to recover from the fine than it is from 20 years in prison.
But anyways, while it's generally true that people don't like life in prison, most of them would rather be alive in prison than dead.
If they are innocent, then they don't belong in prison.
If they are guilty of something that makes them so dangerous as to not let out on the street, why, pray tell, should we be concerned with what they want?
Which is kinda why we don't have a greater trend for prison suicides (though I will admit there are already a considerable number with people like Ricky Kasso, there are also those like Richard Chase who don't kill themselves because they are in prison, but because they are crazy and would probably kill themselves anyway.) There are people who don't care any which way where they are and are fine getting along in prison. Like Charles Manson.
So, not only do we send food to them and pay to have guards take care of them... we also endeavor to keep them from causing harm to themselves.
Let's manicure a tumor.
And then there are people who just don't show up to parole because they want to stay in prison because they think they have a better purpose there than in the outside world. Like David Berkowitz.
Again, why do we even have such institutions for them to abuse?
I don't honestly care about the ethics of the death penalty because I think claiming to have a higher moral ground is flawed. But I'd rather have money going to other things than to have the latest criminal executed because it probably will be more expensive. Whether that's because of appeals or not.
You must be registered for see links
"
The death penalty process is more complicated because a life is on the line. Capital cases involve more lawyers, more witnesses, more experts, a longer jury selection process, more pre-trial motions, an entirely separate trial for sentencing, and countless other expenses – racking up exorbitant costs before a single appeal is even filed.
Most death penalty trials are found to be significantly flawed and must be re-done, sometimes more than once, adding to the high cost.
In most cases where the death penalty is sought, it is never imposed. And even when it is imposed, it is rarely carried out. Yet taxpayers are saddled with the death penalty’s extra costs even in cases where the defendant is not sentenced to death or executed. "
Here's the simple solution:
Get rid of incarceration as a possible sentence. You are left with execution, mandatory service/education/fines, and acquittal.
If what they have done isn't bad enough to make them worth killing, then it isn't bad enough to take away any more time of their life than the trial has, already.
But in some cases, people are given the chance for parole (mistakenly, I might add) even if they committed highly disturbing crimes. One of my personal favorite examples (sorry, this one's from the Canadian justice system) is Karla Homolka. Helped Paul Bernardo rape and kill kiddies. Now he's still locked up and she's been free for awhile. She even has a family now.
This is why you simply tell the police where to find the bodies of the people who attacked your children.
But that's not really here or there. Again - if they aren't worth killing, then they aren't worth depriving of life. It's that simple. If a jury can't find the evidence or stones to put them to death, then I'm willing to take the risk living with them in society. If someone is -really- a problem, then there will be a pattern of events surrounding their life that will make it far easier to convince a jury... or far harder to make an arrest of a live individual.
In the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, there is no doubt he committed the crime of which he was accused. I could care less if he gets executed. But if he does, I want it to be fast because the appeals system is currently very flawed. If our appeal system were better I might have a different response and say, "Sure. Let him fry!" Because I do buy into our violent culture. But he probably will get appeals now and he'll be alive for a long time. It happened with Richard Ramirez (who still had appeals in process at the time of his death.) It's happening with Rodney Alcala. People who are sentenced to death or who are high-profile end up getting protection from other inmates and kept in more secure areas. Death row is really just a place where inmates go to die of natural causes.
Frankly, we put far too many people in prison to begin with, and we have far too many people on trial for things that shouldn't even be a crime, which makes the appeals process even more lengthy and bloats the system even further.
In my estimation, we use the prison system as an excuse. We see a crime and want revenge for the crime - so we want to see someone go to jail for it (and perhaps we also want to feel as if we are securing ourselves against the problem). However, since it's very difficult to come across cases where you've eliminated all reasonable doubt - it's very difficult to get people to agree to killing a person under suspicion of a crime (or multiple crimes).
Thus, it's a sort of bargain - we lower our 'reasonable' standards for doubt when discussing imprisonment because we can always rationalize that the person can be let free if further evidence comes to light.
But in the mean time - if they are correct - they are safe and have also gotten 'justice.'
Which is why I absolutely despise the incarceration system.
