Yet another case that shows why the death penalty is such a bad idea

[sharrukin]

Meh, I've read that, as it stands, it's cheaper to put someone away for life than it is to execute someone with all of th legal challenges and appeals involved. And once they implement emperor Xiahou's prison reforms it could cost 1/3 what it currently does to keep prisoners.

If Emperor Xiahou was running for public office then what you say might be true but until that glorious day arrives...


LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE CASE
Assume $40,000/year cell cost for 50 years, and $75,000 for trial & appeals = $2,075,000
cells are assumed to be cheaper and trials cheap and brief.

DEATH PENALTY CASE
Assume $60,000/year cell cost for 8 years and $1.5 million for trial & appeals = $1,980,000
cells are assumed to expensive and very long and costly trials.

Assume the life without parole cells will not be as secure as death penalty cells. Lets be generous and assume the death penalty cells would cost much more.
Grossly over estimate that death penalty cases will cost twenty times life without parole cases; 20 X $75,000 = $1.5 million.

This does not include adjusted costs for inflation which would greatly increase the costs for the life without parole cases.

Even at exaggerated costs for the death penalty cases, life without parole is NOT cheaper and if we use realistic estimates it becomes even more costly.

[Silver Rusher]

IMHO the death penalty should not be abolished but the case should be reveiwd many times over just in case. And while the death isn't great at deterring crime it gives many people (including me) a sense that justice has been done and a murder will never be let out or be able to live in prison

Of course you are going to say that. You're from texas.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, this is why we don't need handguns...

Actually, those who have concealed handgun licenses are much less likely to be criminals than the average person.

In Florida, they are 400 less likely to be criminals. If the whole state was made up of them, you wouldn't need cops.

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

The right to kill in defense isn't the same as killing in retribution. Who are you protecting by killing someone who is already locked away from society for the rest of their life?

*sniffs, wipes a tear from his eye, blows nose loudly*

I don't know what it is Xiahou, but sometimes you say something so completely correct and beautiful in its simplicity that I get all choked up...

I agree, prison should be an unpleasant experience to serve as a deterrent. For non-lifers, they should have strict, harsh treatment with the opportunity for education or learning job skills. For lifers, just warehouse them.

Again, I agree. I think all prisoners should get the same treatment that Canadian Military prisoners get. For the majority of the day, they spend their time doing "jobs" that are extremely time-consuming and attention-to-detail requiring, yet the jobs themselves are completely useless and serve no purpose (i.e. spit-polishing door knobs, painting rocks, ironing socks, etc...). Forcing somebody to do useless labor is very humbling, and also takes away any pleasure they might feel from accomplishing a task well done.

Anyway, I think non-lifers should have to do this stuff for most of the day, then have maybe two or three hours set aside each day for education and other life-skill type programs.

As for lifers, I'm with Xiahou: stack 'em and rack 'em somewhere. Give them just enough food and water to stay healthy, but no smokes, no TV, no conjugal visits, no anything fun.

[Slyspy]

Bear in mind that some "features" of a stay in jail are designed not to punish or educate the prisoner but to ensure the smooth running of the facility during their incarceration and their chances of remaining "straight" upon release.

Especially regarding non-lifers why would you make life inside humiliating, boring and brutalising. So those who come in leave as colder, harder people? Nonsense. Discipline is not about humiliation or brutality when it comes to prisoners who will be released back into society.

As for lifers then by all means make it tough. But there must be something to strive to, to achieve as well. Or else you increase the likelihood of disorder, riot, sadism etc etc.

As for the death penalty, I scorn those who speak of the value of life and in the next breath are willing to take it away. Whether you use wordy prose or talk of revenge does not matter. If one innocent dies through the mistakes of our legal system then we all become murderers.

The comparison with war is a good one and I cannot deny it. However since justice serves society while warfare serves the state I do not feel the two are the same at all. You forget the furious chaotic nature of war and underplay the personal, deliberate aspects of justice. I for one would not like to see the state killing its own citizens in cold blood.

[sharrukin]

As for the death penalty, I scorn those who speak of the value of life and in the next breath are willing to take it away. Whether you use wordy prose or talk of revenge does not matter. If one innocent dies through the mistakes of our legal system then we all become murderers.

Does that include the mistakes made by the legal system when they let some killer escape or get parole released to kill again? Or do those innocents not count?

[Xiahou]

If Emperor Xiahou was running for public office then what you say might be true but until that glorious day arrives...


LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE CASE
Assume $40,000/year cell cost for 50 years, and $75,000 for trial & appeals = $2,075,000
cells are assumed to be cheaper and trials cheap and brief.

DEATH PENALTY CASE
Assume $60,000/year cell cost for 8 years and $1.5 million for trial & appeals = $1,980,000
cells are assumed to expensive and very long and costly trials.

Were those just your guestimates or were you basing them on something?



Here is an essay entitled "The Economics of Capital Punishment" that has many sourced references to the comparative costs of the death sentence vs life in prison. Here are a few excerpts....

A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life." ( The costs of processing murder cases in North Carolina / Philip J. Cook, Donna B. Slawson ; with the assistance of Lori A. Gries. [Durham, NC] : Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, 1993.)

Figures from the General Accounting Office are close to these results. Total annual costs for all U.S. Prisons, State and Federal, was $17.7 billion in 1994 along with a total prison population of 1.1 million inmates. That amounts to $16100 per inmate/year.
(GOA report and testimony FY-97 GGD-97-15 )

From this; the cost of keeping a 25-year-old inmate for 50 years at present amounts to $805,000. Assuming 75 years as an average life span, the $805,000 figure would be the cost of life in prison. So roughly it's costing us $2 million more to execute someone than it would cost to keep them in jail for life.

[Pindar]

Posted by Pindar
State sponsored killing is the common link. Further, retribution and defense are not mutually exclusive positions. Equity demands proper redress for murder. Moreover, murder by the act alone is an attack on society. Society is justified in removing that threat, but is under no obligation to maintain a determined threat indefinitely.

Both solutions remove the threat to society- one does not needlessly kill a person, the other does. Again, the idea with the military and defense is necessary killing. I don't believe that "take no prisoners" in combat is considered an appropriate approach to combat anymore. Nor in modern society are you justified in hunting down your mugger to shoot them after the fact.

Capital punishment is not advocacy of needless killing. War is not advocacy for needless killing. Now one may argue that given one could hold the guilty in prison indefinitely is an option and so their death is needless. One could also argue that by withholding the bombing of an enemy installation one could ensure no innocents would be lost. Both approaches fail to understand the base notion at hand. The state is empowered to kill. This is done by soldiers, police, juries etc. The state further acts as the means through which justice is served. The most basic notion of justice concerns equity meaning: proper redress (quid pro quo). The only way to redress the killing of an innocent and the improper assumption of state power by a private citizen is through the death of the perpetrator. This protects society against further attack and answers the calls for justice.



References to "take no prisoners" and vigilantism do not apply.

If man is a social animal then forced removal to the periphery of society for life is a barbarism.

So death is better?

Yes.

There are three options. One, life imprisonment which is torture and fails to address the need for retributive equity. Two, exile where the murderer is cast outside society. This then makes society responsible for releasing a predator on another people and also fails to address the original wrong. Three, death. This removes the stain and meets the basic requirements of justice.

[kiwitt]

So do you support abortion? (And I am primarily talking about abortions that take place in teh 2nd and 3rd Trimester.)

I am a moderate. I do support abortion, but only in the 1st tri-mester.

A society that does not have the wherewithal to protect itself...

These Countries have accepted the death penalty is wrong. The USA, as well as Singapore and Japan are the only "Developed" countries to still have it. However, I am not aware of when the latter two carried out one recently. But even if they have not in the same volume as others. If other countries can "ban" it why can't the US; the supposedly most developed country in the world. They all can't be wrong.

Even some States have seen the light

States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates
A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty." (New York Times, 9/22/00)

LINK

Why can't all the states. It is certainly not working as a deterrent.

...
LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE CASE
Assume $40,000/year cell cost for 50 years, and $75,000 for trial & appeals = $2,075,000
cells are assumed to be cheaper and trials cheap and brief.

DEATH PENALTY CASE
Assume $60,000/year cell cost for 8 years and $1.5 million for trial & appeals = $1,980,000
cells are assumed to expensive and very long and costly trials.

If the inmate was contibuting to his costs, by working you may be able to reduce the costs by up to $20,000 a year more than halving the costs of keeping him you estimated. Or making a profit if we use Xiahou's example of $16,000/year.

[Pindar]

A society that does not have the wherewithal to protect itself in the strongest terms necessary against internal threat will not be able muster the strength of will to protect itself against external threat.

These Countries have accepted the death penalty is wrong. The USA, as well as Singapore and Japan are the only "Developed" countries to still have it. However, I am not aware of when the latter two carried out one recently. But even if they have not in the same volume as others. If other countries can "ban" it why can't the US; the supposedly most developed country in the world. They all can't be wrong.

You did not understand the thrust of my comment. Those nations (developed was the term was it?) that have banned capital punishment in many ways exhibit the social weakness and moral myopia that leads to their dependency on other stronger wills for their survival.

[Papewaio]

You are stating that every democracy in the world bar 3 is morally weak because they humanely deal with their criminals?

So you are advocating the death sentence of prisoners as a more moral position. Hence the Japanese killing POWs in WWII is the moral high ground?

[kiwitt]

.. exhibit the social weakness and moral myopia that leads to their dependency on other stronger wills for their survival.

I consider it an "intellectual" strength, not a social weakness, to consider the fuller picture as to why an individual acts the way he does.

Killing a person (Death Penalty), is a bit like removing the weed, but leaving the roots in place. It looks good initially, but after a time it returns again. Unless you address the "root" causes, e.g possibly poverty, education, health services, etc. the situation will remain.

A lot countries where the "Ban" is in place, have systems in place to address these needs, like free healthcare, free education and good social welfare systems, to help people before they fall. NOTE: Even some US states have banned it too!

[Roark]

Pindar, I feel that this concept of "Equity" you are espousing is no more than a slightly more high-brow term for "An eye for an eye".

Again, in reference to my earlier post:

1. Execution is not the only means by which a society can protect itself from a convicted criminal.

2. I reject the notion that life imprisonment is worse than execution. The imprisoned criminal can still extract something from life, no matter how limited that life is due to his prior actions. I'm sure you've heard of the Birdman of Alcatraz. An example of what I'm talking about. He led a productive life whilst imprisoned, even relative to many people who are not. He would not have had that opportunity if executed.

[Productivity]

This does not include adjusted costs for inflation which would greatly increase the costs for the life without parole cases.

You are confusing real and nominal terms. You cannot compare something which costs $1 today, and $1.10 tomorrow, and say that it costs more tomorrow, if tomorrow your income rises to $1.10 from $1 today. Purchasing power is held, there is no change of wealth. Inflation as it currently is only has mininal effects, and when terms are bought back to a real benchmark value, you will find that your inflation argument is irrelevant.

[sharrukin]

Were those just your guestimates or were you basing them on something?

I was basing them on current data.

California Department Of Corrections
Facts And Figures -- Second Quarter 2004
Avg. yearly cost: per inmate, $30,929

Illinois
Stateville Correctional Center
The Stateville Correctional Center is a maximum-security facility
(Information provided from the Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Report)
Average Annual Cost Per Inmate: $33,665.00

Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia
"The average annual cost for housing an inmate in a state prison is about $22,000; at SCI Greene, it is $22,940. Department of Corrections officials said figures weren't available for the average cost of its maximum-security inmates, but nationwide, a maximum-security facility costs $50,000 per prisoner per year or more -- more than tuition at some of the nation's best universities."

That's average, but a life sentence cell would be a higher security cell and would cost more than average and a death penalty cell more than that.

Information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin; It costs $100,000 to build a new prison cell. It costs $200,000 over
25 years to pay interest on the construction debt.

Average health care costs per inmate currently exceed $5,500 annually, compared with less than $4,000 three years ago.

Telephone companies such as AT&T and MCI, for example, compete for prisoners, who make $1 billion worth of calls every year.

Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.

In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases.
The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million.
Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000.
For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost.

Quote:
Figures from the General Accounting Office are close to these results. Total annual costs for all U.S. Prisons, State and Federal, was $17.7 billion in 1994 along with a total prison population of 1.1 million inmates. That amounts to $16100 per inmate/year.
(GOA report and testimony FY-97 GGD-97-15 )

From this; the cost of keeping a 25-year-old inmate for 50 years at present amounts to $805,000. Assuming 75 years as an average life span, the $805,000 figure would be the cost of life in prison. So roughly it's costing us $2 million more to execute someone than it would cost to keep them in jail for life.

The problem is that you are talking about those in minimum security, out on remand and on parole as well when you use figures like these. It costs $3,500 on average for each parolee. Not quite the same thing.

Quote:
A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life." ( The costs of processing murder cases in North Carolina / Philip J. Cook, Donna B. Slawson ; with the assistance of Lori A. Gries. [Durham, NC] : Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, 1993.)

They not even quoting the study correctly.

First off, the Duke University study assumes the 16,000$ figure for minimum security. That is of course ridiculous. Someone who is sent to prison for life doesn't go to minimum security. Duke University graduates are not stupid in the conventional sense so they know perfectly well what they are doing and why they lowballed the figure, as do I. They are against the death penalty and have adjusted the figures to show what results they want. "The operating cost of a year in prison ranges from $16 thousand per inmate for minimum security to $23 thousand per inmate for close security." This is from the Duke University study. These figures are from a june, 1991 DOC study. The above figures for 2003-2004 are closer to the figures I gave.

They also assume the defendant who is sentenced to life doesn't actually serve life but rather serves 20 years.
"the defendant serving 20 years in prison" This is from the Duke University study.

They further assume that the costs for other unrelated death penalty cases that fail or do not result in an execution are to be included in the averaged cost of the death penalty case. They call this the "cohort" perspective. There study is premised on the idea that only 10% of capital cases result in an actual execution. "This last estimate is quite sensitive to our assumption that ten percent of death-sentenced defendants are ultimately executed. These and other assumptions and qualifications are included throughout the report." Texas for example, has executed about one-third of the people it has sentenced to death. Those who were not executed often had the sentence commuted to life imprisonment, but by the logic of this study that cost would become attached to some other death sentence case.

"This figure includes the extra costs of capital prosecutions that do not result in the imposition of the death penalty,"

They also include the annual rental values per square foot of space in the courthouses for reasons that aren't really clear other than to pad the numbers. It's not as if they wouldn't be paying these rental costs if a case of burglary was being tried. This point was made by the Maryland Division of Legislative Services.

"There are, however, far different estimates in a Fiscal Note prepared by the Maryland Division of Legislative Services (DLS) for the 2004 General Assembly in connection with a bill which would have repealed the death penalty. DLS found repeal of the death penalty would decrease General Fund expenditures for the Office of the Public Defender by $1.3 million annually but would not have a significant effect on over all state operations or finances. DLS also found that the effect on State’s Attorneys’ offices would be minimal as staff and associated operating expenses would be used on other cases."

However what they call the "single case" perspective shows something entirely different. This is from the Duke University study.

"The only previous study that is based on a direct measurement of costs for a sample of cases was conducted at the request of the Maryland House Appropriations Committee to provide information on the fiscal impact of processing death penalty cases in the state. 6 The committee appointed to perform this research was able to obtain adequate information on 32 murder cases (out of a statewide total of 80) that were capitally prosecuted between July 1979 and March 1984. The average sum of costs to the state for prosecution and defense attorneys, court time, and expenses was $48,200 for the 23 cases that were tried, and $14,300 for the 9 cases that resulted in a guilty plea. There is no information in this study on the average cost of a noncapital murder case, and nothing on postconviction costs."

Another widely cited study, by Margot Garey, appeared in a symposium on the death penalty published in the University of California at Davis Law Review in 1985. Her estimate for the cost of a capital trial in California was far higher than the Maryland estimate; the author concluded that a capital
murder trial cost $201,510 more than a noncapital murder trial on the average.7 Garey did not analyze a sample of specific cases, but rather pieced together information from interviews with attorneys and from published information on the various components of total cost. While the assumptions behind some of her numbers are not always clear, it appears that she assumed that voir dire would take 40 days longer in a capital case than a noncapital case, and that the trial would last 30 days longer. Garey went on to offer estimates of the cost of the appeal ($100,000) and of postconviction proceedings ($212,202) in capital cases.

A similar though less thorough effort was undertaken by the New York State Defenders Association in 1982.8 It assumed that a capital case would require a four week trial, and estimated the defense costs for such a trial. Prosecution costs were then stipulated to be double that of defense costs. The total cost to the state of a capital trial was estimated to be $1.6 million. Estimates of the costs of subsequent stages were also provided: $160,000 for the direct appeal following a sentence of death and $170,000 for, the petition to the United States Supreme Court after the sentence is affirmed at the state level.

Total cost $1.6 million for a death penalty case as the highest real life estimate.

And here's the kicker. Even based on there own very biased figures there is STILL a savings based on a comparison of a single capital case to a life case.

"The estimated cost savings depend critically on the percentage of defendants executed, and the elapsed time from sentence to execution. For example, assuming an elapsed time of 10 years and a 20 percent execution rate yields an estimate of $33 thousand per death sentence imposed; if the execution rate is only 10 percent, the cost saving falls to $17 thousand."

Their figures and calculations

Execution Percentage; 10% (1 in 10 are executed)
Total Costs per Death Penalty $216,461 X 10 = $2.16 million
Total Costs per Execution $2.16 million

Execution Percentage; 20% (1 in 5 are executed)
Total Costs per Death Penalty $225,377 X 5 = $1,126,885
Total Costs per Execution $1.13 million

Execution Percentage; 30% (1 in 3.33 are executed)
Total Costs per Death Penalty $234,285 X 3.333 = $780,871
Total Costs per Execution $0.78 million

This is not honest in any way.
This is what we in the sticks call a hatchet job!

[Xiahou]

Capital punishment is not advocacy of needless killing. War is not advocacy for needless killing. Now one may argue that given one could hold the guilty in prison indefinitely is an option and so their death is needless. One could also argue that by withholding the bombing of an enemy installation one could ensure no innocents would be lost. Both approaches fail to understand the base notion at hand.

The comparison between executing a prisoner and bombing an enemy installation during war isn't valid. One is a clear threat and an objective towards victory- the other is not. There is a clear need for one soldier to shoot an enemy soldier during combat operations. However, if enemy soldiers are captured, they are no longer an immediate threat and it is not acceptable to kill them. If someone comes at me with a knife, I am justified in defending myself- however, if the person flees or is arrested by authorities, I no longer have justification to shoot him.

The state is empowered to kill. This is done by soldiers, police, juries etc. The state further acts as the means through which justice is served. The most basic notion of justice concerns equity meaning: proper redress (quid pro quo). The only way to redress the killing of an innocent and the improper assumption of state power by a private citizen is through the death of the perpetrator. This protects society against further attack and answers the calls for justice.

So the argument boils down to eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? They have killed so they must be killed? You're honesty is refreshing, many death penalty advocates don't admit that its a matter of vengeance.

So death is better?

Yes.

I'll allow that to speak for itself.

[Pindar]

So you are advocating the death sentence of prisoners as a more moral position. Hence the Japanese killing POWs in WWII is the moral high ground?

Japan was not a democracy during WWII. POWs were not convicted criminals. Neither point is relevant to the discussion.

[Roark]

Japan was not a democracy during WWII. POWs were not convicted criminals. Neither point is relevant to the discussion.

So, as soon as there's "due process", a mandate from the voting public, and the correct papers signed in triplicate, it becomes legitimate and somehow "right"?

Wow, bureaucracy as morality...

[Pindar]

Pindar, I feel that this concept of "Equity" you are espousing is no more than a slightly more high-brow term for "An eye for an eye".

Of course! Equity is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is the basis for the idea of responsibility and punishment. This is seen in everything from contract law through to the criminal courts.

Again, in reference to my earlier post:

1. Execution is not the only means by which a society can protect itself from a convicted criminal.

2. I reject the notion that life imprisonment is worse than execution. The imprisoned criminal can still extract something from life, no matter how limited that life is due to his prior actions. I'm sure you've heard of the Birdman of Alcatraz. An example of what I'm talking about. He led a productive life whilst imprisoned, even relative to many people who are not. He would not have had that opportunity if executed.

Retort

1)If there are acts that are so contrary to the social fabric that return to society is not an option then society is under no obligation to maintain said offender.

2)To harbor for an indefinite period one who has taken life does not, indeed can not, redress the act of murder.

3) Life imprisonment is cruel and unusual punishment as the detainee has no hope of return to society and is thereby prohibited from all the basic functions of society i.e.. marital life, raising a family, participating in the political process, work, freedom of action etc. (The Birdman was scum who killed a guard while in prison).

Originally Posted by Pindar
Japan was not a democracy during WWII. POWs were not convicted criminals. Neither point is relevant to the discussion.

So, as soon as there's "due process", a mandate from the voting public, and the correct papers signed in triplicate, it becomes legitimate and somehow "right"?

Wow, bureaucracy as morality

Alas, a judicial process to be legitimate must have popular consent otherwise it is tyranny.

Executing POWs has not been, nor is it, a proper scope of this discussion as being a soldier is not a criminal act: neither in Japan or the U.S.

[Pindar]

I consider it an "intellectual" strength, not a social weakness, to consider the fuller picture as to why an individual acts the way he does.

Killing a person (Death Penalty), is a bit like removing the weed, but leaving the roots in place. It looks good initially, but after a time it returns again. Unless you address the "root" causes, e.g possibly poverty, education, health services, etc. the situation will remain.

A lot countries where the "Ban" is in place, have systems in place to address these needs, like free healthcare, free education and good social welfare systems, to help people before they fall. NOTE: Even some US states have banned it too!

Attacking the roots of crime is fine and a good thing to address. This does not negate the basic responsibility the rational soul has regarding their actions. It is this base culpability that is at issue. Those who kill for private purpose deserve to sow what they have wrought: death.

[Pindar]

The comparison between executing a prisoner and bombing an enemy installation during war isn't valid. One is a clear threat and an objective towards victory- the other is not.

State sanctioned killing is the issue. If one recognizes the state does have a right to kill (even on a large scale those where no individual guilt can be assigned as in case of war: enemy combatants, friendly fire, collateral damage etc.) then it is incoherent to then argue the state cannot kill those quilty of henious acts against society.

So the argument boils down to eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? They have killed so they must be killed? You're honesty is refreshing, many death penalty advocates don't admit that its a matter of vengeance.

Lex talionis is the Latin. It is foundational to jurisprudence. Vengeance suggests personal mallace. I do not wish to torture of mistreat the quilty. Thus my rejection of cruel punishments like life in prison. I simply expect justice and justice demands reciprocity.

Originally Posted by Xiahou
So death is better?

Originally Posted by Pindar
Yes.

Xiahou I'll allow that to speak for itself.

Indeed you should. Choosing death for the sake of principle goes to the very origins of our Republic.

[Pindar]

Gimme a death sentance over a life sentance any day. It's not just cheaper, it's more humane.

Quite right.

A salute to all forms of jello geometry.

[kiwitt]

It is this base culpability that is at issue.

That may be so. But so many developed countries (and many US states) still do not kill someone They all can't be wrong.

KILLING is WRONG !!

It sends the wrong example others. Remember a lot of people who kill may have limited intelligience and see "killing" as suitable punishment for "wrong" done to them, as the "state" thinks it is OK to kill.

[Xiahou]

State sanctioned killing is the issue. If one recognizes the state does have a right to kill (even on a large scale those where no individual guilt can be assigned as in case of war: enemy combatants, friendly fire, collateral damage etc.) then it is incoherent to then argue the state cannot kill those quilty of henious acts against society.

First. Im not here to argue it's legality- it's not in dispute. But if one follows your logic that the state has an arbitrary right to kill, why does it need to stop at criminals? The state can kill anyone it likes- it has a right to.

Lex talionis is the Latin. It is foundational to jurisprudence. Vengeance suggests personal mallace. I do not wish to torture of mistreat the quilty. Thus my rejection of cruel punishments like life in prison. I simply expect justice and justice demands reciprocity.

Nonsense, take a survey of death row inmates and ask if they'd rather be dead or in jail. Further, if imprisonment equals torture, as you claim, how can you support any length of imprisonment? Everyone in our prisons are being tortured by being there? You believe it would be the "merciful" thing to kill all lifers?

ndeed you should. Choosing death for the sake of principle goes to the very origins of our Republic.

In terms of self-sacrifice, yes. Not forcing death on others for your principles.

[Pindar]

That may be so. But so many developed countries (and many US states) still do not kill someone They all can't be wrong.

So the logic here is numbers equal recitude? If the bulk of what one decides are developed nations thinks X then X is thereby correct. Is this really the tact you want to take?

KILLING is WRONG !!

You're a pacifist?

[Voigtkampf]

First. Im not here to argue it's legality- it's not in dispute. But if one follows your logic that the state has an arbitrary right to kill, why does it need to stop at criminals? The state can kill anyone it likes- it has a right to.

Because of the very same undisputable legality of its action, and illegal nature of random arbitrary killing.

The state has the right to kill those that break the laws of the society in such harsh manner that only final termination of the subject that has committed the said atrocity is a viable solution to restore the balance of the society. This ultimate punishment has several functions, retribution towards the offender and general intimidation to other possible offenders being probably the two most important ones.

Only under such conditions can judicial system come to the point where it can execute those who break the laws in according manner. Or do you argue against the death sentence out of fear that the state will, based on that right to kill, start killing anyone it fancies?

Nonsense, take a survey of death row inmates and ask if they'd rather be dead or in jail. Further, if imprisonment equals torture, as you claim, how can you support any length of imprisonment? Everyone in our prisons are being tortured by being there? You believe it would be the "merciful" thing to kill all lifers?

You forget the keyword; reciprocity.

[Pindar]

First. Im not here to argue it's legality- it's not in dispute. But if one follows your logic that the state has an arbitrary right to kill, why does it need to stop at criminals? The state can kill anyone it likes- it has a right to.

I am not making a legal argument. The use of 'right' implies moral force. Are you challenging that the state has the right to kill?

Do you really think I am arguing for arbitrary killing? Has anything I've posted suggested the state can simply remove any and all at its leisure? The point revolves around base notions of justice and civil mandate. This should be obvious. With capital punishment I have argued that if there are such cases where the guilty are considered beyond reprieve and thereby would not be allowed to return to society then death is the proper conclusion. The simple working example has been cases of murder where a base equity can be demonstrated. I think I have been consistent in arguing this point.

Lax talionis is the Latin. It is foundational to jurisprudence. Vengeance suggests personal malice. I do not wish to torture of mistreat the guilty. Thus my rejection of cruel punishments like life in prison. I simply expect justice and justice demands reciprocity.

Nonsense, take a survey of death row inmates and ask if they'd rather be dead or in jail. Further, if imprisonment equals torture, as you claim, how can you support any length of imprisonment? Everyone in our prisons are being tortured by being there? You believe it would be the "merciful" thing to kill all lifers?

What is nonsense? Lex talionius isn't Latin? It isn't a fundamental principle of jurisprudence? I do wish to mistreat the guilty? I don't expect justice? This section you are responding to is making a linguistic/historical point and then follows with my own views: note the 'I' and 'my' in the latter sentences. I don't understand the nonsense charge.

Now in terms of death row opinion I doubt you have actually spoken to anyone on death row. I have: several in fact. I have seen the misery of their lives and heard report of it from their own lips. Many did think death preferable. But, for the sake of argument, if we assume that all death row inmates want to live, what of it? The base demands of justice are not effected by the sentiments of the guilty.

I have not argued imprisonment alone equals torture. I have argued that life in prison where there is no possible return is cruel and unusual punishment. I have also argued that in such cases death is more humane and proper.

In terms of self-sacrifice, yes. Not forcing death on others for your principles.

Does this mean those who served in the Continental Army shouldn't have fired their weapons and thereby 'forced death on others for (their) principles?' Better they simply sacrificed themselves?

The reality is killing in pursuit of the good informs our national experience.# Our nation came to be by the shedding of blood and is preserved by the same.


#Given recent confusion: no. I'm not justifying vigilantism here. Killing is a state authorized function.

[Pindar]

Because of the very same undisputable legality of its action, and illegal nature of random arbitrary killing...


You forget the keyword; reciprocity.

Quite right.

[Sigurd]

What do you think of nations that have maximum imprisonment of 21 years, no matter what the crime was?

[Slyspy]

Does that include the mistakes made by the legal system when they let some killer escape or get parole released to kill again? Or do those innocents not count?

Such incidents are regrettable. However any subsequent killings are the crimes of the released man not, as is the case in the death sentence, of the courts and by extension ourselves.

I see that the state sanctioned killing arguments is still in full flow from our cold-hearted lawyer! I would still agrue that the state has no right to kill its own citizens. In fact I see that as a basic aspect of a free country. It is also why the recent Underground shooting disturbed me so (plus the aspect of extra-judicial killing). This is merest opinion however since I have no legal background.

I would suggest that if Pindar considers life imprisonment as torture even for the most heinous crimes (and therefore views death as a prefered solution) then surely it is torture for all? Is being jailed any more pleasant for five years than it is for life? Should all convicts be killed by the state?

For all those who weigh up the value of life and the cost of prison and decide that death is better than spending dollars I say shame on you. If you believe this then you forfeit the right to any moral high ground on any subject of life and death (for example, abortion). You would sell your own Grandmother for glue.