Reversing my position on death penalty.

[PennLady]

Does it cost more to put people to death than to house them for 30+ years? That argument makes no sense at all to me!

Take in the costs of health, food, space, etc. and clearly keeping them alive should cost more than executing them!

I have read over the years -- I'm sorry I can't find a source right now but I can look later -- that it is cheaper to house and feed criminals than it is to put them to death because the appeals process is, or can be, so lengthy.

Putting people to death should not be an easy thing. It should be gone over and over again with a fine-toothed comb to make sure that the person in question is in fact guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I actually don't have a problem with the appeals process because I think these decisions should be looked at from every possible angle to avoid putting an innocent person to death, as happened (or very probably happened) in this case.

So yes, if someone was executed within a short time of conviction, certainly the cost of their room and board (if you will) would be less than housing them the rest of their lives. But that's not how it works in most cases.

 

[rgraham666]

But then the day might come when you are drafted to execute someone. What would you do then? It's obviously something that you oppose, so what to do with it?

I'd go to jail.

 

[rgraham666]

You would force someone who doesn't believe in taking another's life to do so because they drew a number? That's certainly idiotic.

I took the thrust of Rob's post to be if this were the criteria for enforcing the death penalty, there would be a whole heckaofa lot more folks opposing the death penalty.

Just so.

I want it so that the big talkers, the ones who are all for flattening 'scum,' would actually have to take responsibility for the death of another human being. Too many have that wall of 'it won't be me doing the killing.' Even a lot of the most blood thirsty would be much less willing if they actually had to do it. Splattering someone's brains over the prison yard shouldn't be easy to do.

As I've stated before I would support the death penalty if a mistake was never made (impossible considering human beings are involved), if it was carried out fairly (please note there are no rich, white males on Death Row) and if it was used only for judicial purposes (for which see my objections to my first two points).

Again, capital punishment is a simple solution to a complex problem.

ETA: Should my conditions for capital punishment be met, I would regard it as a duty for each and every citizen. Just like serving in war time, voting or paying taxes.

 

[Handley_Page]

I have not changed my personal view on the use for Death as the last sentence for a capital crime.

But, as it often usual with these important matters, there is an all-too-often fine line between A and B.
A large number of folk think it's a good thing, but cannot settle on the method to be employed. This breaks down to whether it could be labelled "cruel & unusual" (a thing we never had in the UK). For example, there have been those who claim that the first of the three compounds to be injected can cause acute pain (which they claim is a Bad Thing). Strangely enough, there is a body of opinion that this inflicted pain is not important in the Grand Scheme of Things because [A] it's short-lived, and the criminal should not have done the crime anyway, so "Tough".

Then there's the split in deciding the actual method of execution. To my mind, those responsible in USA for deciding these matter might have had a closer look at other methods in other countries, as well as how many ways ARE there to terminate someone's life ?

The Ancient Egyptians often used poison (unless it was a crime against the State or the Pharaoh), as did the Ancient Greeks.
Go back far enough and things can get a bit untidy (the Axe). The French latterly used the Guillotine; both swift & efficient, if somewhat messy. A similar criticism can be mounted at several of the Arab countries where beheading may still be employed, even if there is a deal of skill by the swordsman. Naturally, a simple bullet in the head (or several to the heart) is very effective but that bring us neatly to the other problem: personal responsibility for the act.

A military Firing Squad has a neat way of skirting this problem. One of the Rifles is loaded with a blank and only the Armourer knows which one (and even he does not know to whom it is issued). I gather that Russia & China have no such squeamish scruples. A single, slow, 9mm is enough and it does not leave much by way of a mark (Cause of Death: Brain Haemorrhage).

I was told that there are several buttons on the modern console for the Electric Chair and the Controller for the lethal injection. Only one causes the action, but the machine randomly selects which one.

We in the UK used the Rope, a method which does not seem to have been used 'properly' (as in Quick & Painless) in the USA, to judge be the odd report. The cause of Death is actually the breaking of the neck at about the 2nd vertebra (and severing the spinal cord), and not the strangulation all too often alleged. Other countries in Europe also had a resident Hangman.

There are more and inventive methods, but now is not the best time to write of them.
And then there's the "how to we make sure the convicted one is the guilty one" debate.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Just so.

I want it so that the big talkers, the ones who are all for flattening 'scum,' would actually have to take responsibility for the death of another human being. Too many have that wall of 'it won't be me doing the killing.' Even a lot of the most blood thirsty would be much less willing if they actually had to do it. Splattering someone's brains over the prison yard shouldn't be easy to do.

As I've stated before I would support the death penalty if a mistake was never made (impossible considering human beings are involved), if it was carried out fairly (please note there are no rich, white males on Death Row) and if it was used only for judicial purposes (for which see my objections to my first two points).

Again, capital punishment is a simple solution to a complex problem.

ETA: Should my conditions for capital punishment be met, I would regard it as a duty for each and every citizen. Just like serving in war time, voting or paying taxes.

The Germans proved that killing people is easy enough, and most people will do it.

 

[topace]

I have read over the years -- I'm sorry I can't find a source right now but I can look later -- that it is cheaper to house and feed criminals than it is to put them to death because the appeals process is, or can be, so lengthy.

Putting people to death should not be an easy thing. It should be gone over and over again with a fine-toothed comb to make sure that the person in question is in fact guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I actually don't have a problem with the appeals process because I think these decisions should be looked at from every possible angle to avoid putting an innocent person to death, as happened (or very probably happened) in this case.

So yes, if someone was executed within a short time of conviction, certainly the cost of their room and board (if you will) would be less than housing them the rest of their lives. But that's not how it works in most cases.

The same could be said for those sent to jail - they also keep appealing their sentences as well, and thus the cost of keeping them rises as well.

Plus the emotional cost of knowing someone who willingly killed a loved one is still alive and can still live their life in relative comfort is something you have to factor in to both sides as well, but eventually the one on death row dies and the suffering is over for the victim(s)'s family/families.

 

[PennLady]

The same could be said for those sent to jail - they also keep appealing their sentences as well, and thus the cost of keeping them rises as well.

I'm not a legal expert, so I can't say if this is true or not. It may be true in theory, but I don't think it's true IRL. I'm sure some people appeal their sentences for various reasons, but I doubt everyone does it, otherwise the system would have collapsed by now.

Plus the emotional cost of knowing someone who willingly killed a loved one is still alive and can still live their life in relative comfort is something you have to factor in to both sides as well, but eventually the one on death row dies and the suffering is over for the victim(s)'s family/families.

I disagree here. I intend no disrespect to anyone who's lost a loved one to murder, but I'd hardly call prison "relative comfort," unless you mean simply having shelter and food is "relative comfort." And I doubt the suffering is over when the killer dies. The loved one is still gone; the killer's death by any means will not bring them back. It may satisfy a need for revenge (which I suspect we all have to some degree), and there may be a sense of relief that the killer cannot kill again, but I don't think it ends suffering for anyone.

I don't mean to dismiss the "emotional cost" but the idea of justice is not to make the victim's family or circle feel better.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm not a legal expert, so I can't say if this is true or not. It may be true in theory, but I don't think it's true IRL. I'm sure some people appeal their sentences for various reasons, but I doubt everyone does it, otherwise the system would have collapsed by now.



I disagree here. I intend no disrespect to anyone who's lost a loved one to murder, but I'd hardly call prison "relative comfort," unless you mean simply having shelter and food is "relative comfort." And I doubt the suffering is over when the killer dies. The loved one is still gone; the killer's death by any means will not bring them back. It may satisfy a need for revenge (which I suspect we all have to some degree), and there may be a sense of relief that the killer cannot kill again, but I don't think it ends suffering for anyone.

I don't mean to dismiss the "emotional cost" but the idea of justice is not to make the victim's family or circle feel better.

Nonsense. The family and society requires catharsis. Killing the killer settles the score and removes the temptation from a bleeding heart do-gooder to be merciful and release the killer back on society. Our Pinhead Lady is young and dum.

 

[TE999]

Just so.

I want it so that the big talkers, the ones who are all for flattening 'scum,' would actually have to take responsibility for the death of another human being. Too many have that wall of 'it won't be me doing the killing.' Even a lot of the most blood thirsty would be much less willing if they actually had to do it. Splattering someone's brains over the prison yard shouldn't be easy to do.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen crime scene photos? Not the sanitized ones on the TV, but the actual photos? I have. Plenty of them. When you see a ten year old kid or a teen age girl butchered like a steer you don't feel philosophical, you feel anger at the scum who did that. How about a little girl choked then buried alive in a garbage bag clutching her stuffed toy while still breathing? How about a young mother gutted for her fetus? How about a young boy shot execution style?

Scum that do this sort of thing deserve to die and I for one would do the deed in a heartbeat. It'd be like stepping on a cockroach.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen crime scene photos? Not the sanitized ones on the TV, but the actual photos? I have. Plenty of them. When you see a ten year old kid or a teen age girl butchered like a steer you don't feel philosophical, you feel anger at the scum who did that. How about a little girl choked then buried alive in a garbage bag clutching her stuffed toy while still breathing? How about a young mother gutted for her fetus? How about a young boy shot execution style?

Scum that do this sort of thing deserve to die and I for one would do the deed in a heartbeat. It'd be like stepping on a cockroach.

Just as long as it's really the person who really did do it.

Which is the problem, because the anger we feel in such a situation is so great that we will sometimes act-- pick out a scapegoat to punish just to be rid of the anger.

 

[TexasWife25]

The same could be said for those sent to jail - they also keep appealing their sentences as well, and thus the cost of keeping them rises as well.

Plus the emotional cost of knowing someone who willingly killed a loved one is still alive and can still live their life in relative comfort is something you have to factor in to both sides as well, but eventually the one on death row dies and the suffering is over for the victim(s)'s family/families.

I am by no means a law expert, however the 1st thing they teach you in law 101 is that most cases are not decided in the court room. A vast majority of people who are in jail are there not because they had a trial and were found guilty but because once arrested they plead guilty and received a deal. If every single case went to trial, or even 60% of them, the courts would be unable to handle the strain.

I'm not factoring in emotional cost, I'm sorry to anyone who has ever lost a loved one, but I don't factor in " because I want that person to die" when calculating the cost of putting someone to death.

At the end of the day, on average it costs 4 times what it does to house someone for life as it does to put them to death.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen crime scene photos? Not the sanitized ones on the TV, but the actual photos? I have. Plenty of them. When you see a ten year old kid or a teen age girl butchered like a steer you don't feel philosophical, you feel anger at the scum who did that. How about a little girl choked then buried alive in a garbage bag clutching her stuffed toy while still breathing? How about a young mother gutted for her fetus? How about a young boy shot execution style?

Scum that do this sort of thing deserve to die and I for one would do the deed in a heartbeat. It'd be like stepping on a cockroach.

I agree with you whole-heartedly. The scum who do such heinous things should not be allowed to live any longer than can be helped. However, I would be against showing such photographs or describing such details at a trial to determine guilt or innocence, unless it can be shown that they are proof one way or another. Such things can only serve to inflame the jury against the defendant, and might result in a wrongful verdict of "Guilty." However, they do belong in a trial to determine the sentence after a guilty verdict is in.

I felt bad on learning John Couey died of natural causes on Florida's Death Row. I would much rather he had been put to death by the state in the way he deserved for his rape and murder of Jessica Lunsford.

 

[ottohauser1977]

Just so.

I want it so that the big talkers, the ones who are all for flattening 'scum,' would actually have to take responsibility for the death of another human being. Too many have that wall of 'it won't be me doing the killing.' Even a lot of the most blood thirsty would be much less willing if they actually had to do it. Splattering someone's brains over the prison yard shouldn't be easy to do.

As I've stated before I would support the death penalty if a mistake was never made (impossible considering human beings are involved), if it was carried out fairly (please note there are no rich, white males on Death Row) and if it was used only for judicial purposes (for which see my objections to my first two points).

Again, capital punishment is a simple solution to a complex problem.

ETA: Should my conditions for capital punishment be met, I would regard it as a duty for each and every citizen. Just like serving in war time, voting or paying taxes.

Rob, I want you to know that even though I had away from here for a long time, your arguments were deep in the back of my mind when I examined and reconsidered my position on the issue. It wasn't the decisive factor, but it was an influence. Mainly the part about about it being political, which brought back heavy memories of the DDR, Erich Honecker, the Stasi, and all of the various regimenting practices of life under Communism. It's an ugly reminder of institutionalized violence officially sanctioned by the State and society.

Capital punishment can easily be twisted into something very political indeed. The DDR can be a case in point.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I am by no means a law expert, however the 1st thing they teach you in law 101 is that most cases are not decided in the court room. A vast majority of people who are in jail are there not because they had a trial and were found guilty but because once arrested they plead guilty and received a deal. If every single case went to trial, or even 60% of them, the courts would be unable to handle the strain.

I'm not factoring in emotional cost, I'm sorry to anyone who has ever lost a loved one, but I don't factor in " because I want that person to die" when calculating the cost of putting someone to death.

At the end of the day, on average it costs 4 times what it does to house someone for life as it does to put them to death.

Most of that expense is the cost of the innumerable appeals of Death Row prisoners. Most of the appeals have no virtue at all, and serve to delay the prisoner getting what he deserves and enriching the lawyer. I'm not sure, but I believe most lawyers in such cases are appointed by the court and are paid by the taxpayers.

I'm all for appeals if there is new evidence that could be exculpatory, but I also think if lawyers bring frivilous appeals, they should be punished and so should lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Rob, I want you to know that even though I had away from here for a long time, your arguments were deep in the back of my mind when I examined and reconsidered my position on the issue. It wasn't the decisive factor, but it was an influence. Mainly the part about about it being political, which brought back heavy memories of the DDR, Erich Honecker, the Stasi, and all of the various regimenting practices of life under Communism. It's an ugly reminder of institutionalized violence officially sanctioned by the State and society.

Capital punishment can easily be twisted into something very political indeed. The DDR can be a case in point.

You don't have to talk about the DDR etc. You can talk about the southern USA even as recently as 80 years ago, when some black defendants were hanged after trials that were no more than officially sanctioned lynchings. However, the glare of publicity has essentially eliminated that part of the problem.

Let's face it, Cloudy and some other Southerners. You know what I refer to really did happen, albeit decades ago.

 

[ottohauser1977]

You don't have to talk about the DDR etc. You can talk about the southern USA even as recently as 80 years ago, when some black defendants were hanged after trials that were no more than officially sanctioned lynchings. However, the glare of publicity has essentially eliminated that part of the problem.

Let's face it, Cloudy and some other Southerners. You know what I refer to really did happen, albeit decades ago.

Ah, I referenced the DDR because I grew up in it. I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall all too well. Even at my young age, I heard of people being arrested, because kids were applauded for snitching on others.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You don't have to talk about the DDR etc. You can talk about the southern USA even as recently as 80 years ago, when some black defendants were hanged after trials that were no more than officially sanctioned lynchings. However, the glare of publicity has essentially eliminated that part of the problem.

Let's face it, Cloudy and some other Southerners. You know what I refer to really did happen, albeit decades ago.

Otto is German and lives in Germany, Box. America is not actually the center of the world.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
You don't have to talk about the DDR etc. You can talk about the southern USA even as recently as 80 years ago, when some black defendants were hanged after trials that were no more than officially sanctioned lynchings. However, the glare of publicity has essentially eliminated that part of the problem.

Let's face it, Cloudy and some other Southerners. You know what I refer to really did happen, albeit decades ago.

Ah, I referenced the DDR because I grew up in it. I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall all too well. Even at my young age, I heard of people being arrested, because kids were applauded for snitching on others.

I understand, but I have mostly been referring to capital punishment in the US. I also realize how, under various dictators, including some kings and emperors, people were put to death on the flimsiest of pretexts, which is part of the reason for the West European aversion to the death penalty. I don't actually like the death penalty, but I believe it is sometimes the best thing to deal with the worst of the worst.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Otto is German and lives in Germany, Box. America is not actually the center of the world.

I know that, but it has, somehow, become the center of this discussion.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I know that, but it has, somehow, become the center of this discussion.

Rob cited Canadian cases. Handley cited facts about lots of places.

(also, I understand that Otto is a naturalised citizen of the USA since year 2000. But he most certainly did grow up in Germany)

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm all for appeals if there is new evidence that could be exculpatory, but I also think if lawyers bring frivilous appeals, they should be punished and so should lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits.

Part of what drives up the cost of Death Penalty sentences is not only endless appeals by the convict, but extraneous appeals by anti-death-penalty organizations even when the convict opposes such third party appeals. IIRC, it was Gary Gilmore who had three stays of execution that consumed several years and several courts as a result of third party appeals he opposed.

I have no idea how much cost that added to the execution, but it was three years or so of court costs and maintenance costs that weren't necessary because the condemned admitted his guilt, there was undeniable evidence against him, and all appropriate appeals and reviews had confirmed the death penalty.

The problem with the execution of innocents is not a problem with the death penalty, but a problem with wrongful convictions in general. Banning the death penalty does absolutely nothing
to address the problem of wrongful convictions or the other problems with our criminal justice system.

The bottom line is that the criminal justice system needs to have the death penalty as the ultimate sanction for incorrigible criminals -- those who are unimpressed by the threat of, "You just earned yourself another consecutive life sentence to add to the 20 you're already serving."

 

[Stella_Omega]

Part of what drives up the cost of Death Penalty sentences is not only endless appeals by the convict, but extraneous appeals by anti-death-penalty organizations even when the convict opposes such third party appeals. IIRC, it was Gary Gilmore who had three stays of execution that consumed several years and several courts as a result of third party appeals he opposed.

I have no idea how much cost that added to the execution, but it was three years or so of court costs and maintenance costs that weren't necessary because the condemned admitted his guilt, there was undeniable evidence against him, and all appropriate appeals and reviews had confirmed the death penalty.

This I agree with.

The problem with the execution of innocents is not a problem with the death penalty, but a problem with wrongful convictions in general. Banning the death penalty does absolutely nothing
to address the problem of wrongful convictions or the other problems with our criminal justice system.

But it does address the problem of reversing a sentence if the convict is lucky enough to be exonerated.

The bottom line is that the criminal justice system needs to have the death penalty as the ultimate sanction for incorrigible criminals -- those who are unimpressed by the threat of, "You just earned yourself another consecutive life sentence to add to the 20 you're already serving."

A threat? What for is a threat necessary? Why should a dude in lockup have to be impressed by anything ever again? Life without parole is working pretty well in the case of Charles Manson. We need more sentences like that.

 

[ottohauser1977]

This I agree with. But it does address the problem of reversing a sentence if the convict is lucky enough to be exonerated. A threat? What for is a threat necessary? Why should a dude in lockup have to be impressed by anything ever again? Life without parole is working pretty well in the case of Charles Manson. We need more sentences like that.

Or Dennis Rader....or John List, for that matter.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This I agree with. But it does address the problem of reversing a sentence if the convict is lucky enough to be exonerated. A threat? What for is a threat necessary? Why should a dude in lockup have to be impressed by anything ever again? Life without parole is working pretty well in the case of Charles Manson. We need more sentences like that.

Manson is not doing life without parole. He actually has regular appointments to meet the parole board, some of which he doesn't bother to keep. No parole board will ever turn him loose, but some fatheaded governor might some day. Moonbeam just might be the one.

Harold is right about the problem being wrongful convictions. That's supposed to be the reason for appeals, but so many people game the system and keep alive those who should have been snuffed long ago.

I firmly believe the solution is to be extra meticulous in trying and keep prosecutors and police from railroading innocent persons, which they have been known to do. A civilian review board of all convictions would help, and it might even help speed up the executions of those who deserve to be executed.

 

[saucydenise]

Or Dennis Rader....or John List, for that matter.

Very true. See, I was right about this all along. Sorry. Just using an ex's right to pick on a former spouse.