Re: “The case for the death penalty,” June 7 Mike Rosen column.
Mike Rosen has it wrong on the death penalty. He calls for “retribution” — a.k.a. vengeance — without considering two major costs.
According to a recent article in Time, it costs six to eight times more money to put someone to death than to put them away for life. I’d rather have good roads.
It hurts the survivors, who are victims, because of the prolonged trials and appeals, when they have to revisit the loss of their loved ones. I’d rather spare them the suffering.
Many who get the death penalty actually end up dying of old age, in prison, while awaiting the actual execution. So what is the point?
Tim Haley, Colorado Springs
This letter was published in the June 14 edition.I am a senior citizen who has seen vast changes in our legal position on the death penalty.
Nathan Dunlap has been in prison for more than 20 years after murdering four people in an Aurora family restaurant. James Holmes may see the same fate for murdering 12 in an Aurora theater. In our country, there are many more criminals on death row at taxpayer expense.
How much are taxpayers willing to pay for the ills of convicted criminals? Taxes can be used for constructive purposes like support of education, restoring infrastructure in our state, aiding social and developmental causes and helping the less fortunate. There are so many worthwhile causes and needs; wasting time and money on criminals is a disgrace we can no longer afford.
David Prok, Parker
This letter was published in the June 14 edition.Regarding the argument that a death sentence is even more “expensive” than life imprisonment, that is due to our seemingly endless appeal process. In my opinion, there needs to be a limit — in terms of both time and number of appeals — after which the penalty is carried out.
Barbara Vetter, Broomfield
This letter was published in the June 14 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
