Why if some one on death row tries to take their own life in america do you resuscitate them if you

Why if some one on death row tries to take their own life in america why do you resuscitate them if you are going to execute them anyway?


it really baffles me to why they even bother resuscitating them.is it that the american justice system likes to make sure they suffer a few more years in that hell hole before they finally get executed.and there is no easy way out?



i seriously screwed this post up might re post it

It's just the nature of the system, while you're alive you're still a part of the machine.

reply to post by TBR47

Partly because they may get some sort of fine thing, and because they like too wait and humiliate them further too get this thing some call justice..

the system wants them dead, when they get resuscitated in jail its the act of a person not wanting death on their conscience if they have a chance to stop it from happenning.

I assume that it would make the system look bad. They want to be represented as always being in control. Only they have a say in WHEN that person will die, because they are "in charge".

They don't want to have a reputation of people being able to take their own lives while under their watch. How would that make them look? Careless.

Then they execute them, but only because they planned for it. They have to be in charge and they can't look bad.

reply to post by TBR47


Because the American Justice system is full of idiots. And I'm being nce about that.

Do yourself a favor and try not to make sense out of the sysem here, because it doesn't make any.

Not to me at least.

The only reason is money. You are worth more alive rotting in a cell at 68,000$ a year, instead of dead and they make nothing. Average "cost" to house a prisoner in the US is 68,000 a year.
ETA: Actually I just read it is 47,000 ayear average cost to house them.

www.lao.ca.gov...

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
I assume that it would make the system look bad. They want to be represented as always being in control. Only they have a say in WHEN that person will die, because they are "in charge".

They don't want to have a reputation of people being able to take their own lives while under their watch. How would that make them look? Careless.

Then they execute them, but only because they planned for it. They have to be in charge and they can't look bad.

I totally agree Its all whose the bigger man and authority in theese cases. Kind of like in medival times when they killed people just too show who is boss

As sick and cruel as it sounds, I believe that the act of killing a killer in front of an audience including victim relatives, gives "some" a sense of revenge and closure. Also, IMO, It is used as "public display" to warn would be offenders, so in essence, it is a subliminal mind control mechanism to prevent death/murder/kill. That said, without "the convicted offender" they are unable to carry out the "revenge" or "mind control" so they will revived and kept the "tool" under watch until they are of use to some sicko who NEEDS death to survive.

To me it perpetuates violence in the mind of the innocents. It promotes negativity.

I think the whole an eye for an eye philosophy is extremely ancient and barbaric. But what can you do. Some people are sociopaths and psychopaths. Maybe if we put them all on the same island and let them have a life among their peers it would be more civilized.

That's almost like asking why bother waiting, get it over and done with...

They're there to suffer the consequence of their actions. To let them die earlier than their sentence would be for them to not have to deal with the consequence.

It's a bad world, my thoughts on the death penalty are weird, they conflict. I have to agree to disagree with myself because I don't think anybody who pleads not guilty should die, there's always that slim chance of them being innocent, but the conflict is that everyone would plead not guilty.

Prison is such a horrible drain on the system and it's obviously failing to a certain extent because the prisons are full (here in the UK).

Give back the powers to police, teachers and parents and things might change. I know the World has moved on, but look back at the 50's 60's for example, crime rates were lower, you didn't worry as much about yourself/family/personal possessions. It's time to stop moving forward with new laws, legislations, regulations and go back to the good old clip around the ear, cane, whip, whatever it takes but it has to start with the young.

reply to post by scottlpool2003

I agree with you greatly My thoughts also conflict.

reply to post by scottlpool2003


Crime rates sky rocketed when Maggie thatcher started letting immigrants in.she let a whole knew kettle of fish in and even our toughest and most drastic punishments was a slap on the wrist to them,

reply to post by AllUrChips


I am surprised america still has the death penalty, almost every other western country has stopped it. Paedophiles and rapists and such should be put in a sealed room with killer ants that would be my capital punishment let the sickos die a slow painful death

reply to post by TBR47


Me too however its only in a small minority of states. I think the president should step in or something....