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

At least in this case, the poor bugger was only wrongfully imprisoned for twenty years due (arguably) to police misconduct. Just imagine if the state had whacked the guy instead. One thing that really pisses me off is that prosecutors tried to block the use of DNA evidence, presumably because they thought (knew?) it would clear him. That just doesn't seem right to me. Are prosecutors not supposed to be bound by the truth? Is the prosecutorial view now that even a wrongful conviction is better than no conviction at all?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8790793/

wow...this guy has either lost it or is a saint.

He spent 19 of his best years in prison and he didnt get to see his kids grow and he doesnt seem bitter about it.

What this case shows, is the easiness some judicial systems will put someone to jail with minimal or no evidence. I wonder if the judges and detectives who are responsible for him losing so much of his life will be held responsible and go to jail....I doubt it...and its plain wrong.

Yeah, his lack of bitterness is truly remarkable. If that happened to me I'd be suing everyone I possibly could.

Rasafaros has an excellent point. I wonder if the DA worked to block the evidence to provide cover for the criminal wrongdoings of somebody in his department.

Beyond aboloshing the death penalty, I'm also 100% in favor of aboloshing jailhouse witnesses. You're going to offer a guy who's facing 15 years a 5 year sentence to come in and testify against somebody else? And you expect him to be honest? Give me a freakin break. I bet the vast majority of convicts would finger their own mother on a murder rap to get a few years knocked off their sentence.

Quote:

---

He was sentenced to 13 to 26 years in prison and was denied parole four times because he refused to accept responsibility for the crime.

---

Well the purpose of parole is'nt to find you guilty again but to see if you are threat to society and if you can handle the world without being a menace.

This is the same type of argument that is used against guns, and its a weak one. Lets trot out some poor soul who was wronged and garner enough of an emotional response as to erase logical reasoning.

Every policy has its shortcomings. By your logic Goof, we should stop imprisoning people because there are cases of those who have been wrongly imprisoned. Also we should stop police from arresting people because there could be mistakes made there too. ~:rolleyes:

At least he got a egree and learned seven(!!!) musicial instruments. ~D ~;)

I think those prosecutors should go to prison because they wanted to refuse the DNA tests, how can one stand against justice like that? If you are against such tests, there´s a high chance their outcome won´t be good for you. I don´t see any other reason to be against it.

Quote:

---

Beyond aboloshing the death penalty, I'm also 100% in favor of aboloshing jailhouse witnesses. You're going to offer a guy who's facing 15 years a 5 year sentence to come in and testify against somebody else? And you expect him to be honest? Give me a freakin break. I bet the vast majority of convicts would finger their own mother on a murder rap to get a few years knocked off their sentence.

---

It can serve a purpose though, Don. If you can put away a criminal you could not have before, a criminal who causes far more grief and suffering than the jailhouse witness, then I don't see a problem.

As to the point of the thread, agreed, one of the biggest reasons against the death penalty and why it should never be allowed in a decent society.

This is a good example of where the "Death Penalty" is wrong. Another life saved. The justice system is not perfect, why let it deliver the ultimate sentence. This case proves that point.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

... many people (including me) a sense that justice has been done ...

---

So killing is "Justice" in your mind. That isn't impartial to me. It is more like "revenge".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Justice is a concept involving the fair, moral, and impartial treatment of all persons, especially in law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

So killing is "Justice" in your mind. That isn't impartial to me. It is more like "revenge".

---

I belive if a 30 year old man rapes and kills a 7 year old he does deserve death and I do believe thats justice those kind of people shouldn't be around

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

This is the same type of argument that is used against guns, and its a weak one.

---

No it's not, and no it's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Every policy has its shortcomings.

---

But not every policy's "shortcomings" involve the state murdering an innocent person for no reason other than a hunger for vengeance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

By your logic Goof, we should stop imprisoning people because there are cases of those who have been wrongly imprisoned. Also we should stop police from arresting people because there could be mistakes made there too. ~:rolleyes:

---

Speaking of weak arguments...

Where did I say anything about wanting to abolish prison terms or arrests? You are the one who is making a very faulty leap of logic in order to set yourself up a nice, plump straw-man to take down.

There is nothing wrong with handing out lenthy prison terms. Even if we get it wrong, I still do not fault th police or prosecutors (as long as they acted in good faith and within the law).

But the problem is that the death penalty is final; there's no righting a wrong decision when that type of punishment is applied. And given the alarming amount of wrongful convictions that take place, to me, it's simply not worth the risk to execute people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

I belive if a 30 year old man rapes and kills a 7 year old he does deserve death and I do believe thats justice those kind of people shouldn't be around

---

That is an "emotive" statement. How many Deaths Penalties are given out for that in proportion to Death Penalties for Adult vs Adult. I think the latter would be higher.

What would happen if the person accused and killed is later found not guitly due to new evidence. Oh Well we get things wrong sometimes. No consideration is given to the person accused and the loss their family had to endure.

That is an "emotive" statement. How many Deaths Penalties are given out for that in proportion to Death Penalties for Adult vs Adult. I think the latter would be higher.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm read these


What would happen if the person accused and killed is later found not guitly due to new evidence. Oh Well we get things wrong sometimes. No consideration is given to the person accused and the loss their family had to endure.[/QUOTE]

Good point this is why if were about to sentence the man we better have not one possible shred of doubt

Checked that link. . Only 1 out of 5 checked involved children.

Its not just about the children its about the raped and murder women the convient store clerk shot at point blank range for sheer greed. In some states these pepole are given chance for parole PAROLE :furious3: thats bull sh**

Quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with handing out lenthy prison terms. Even if we get it wrong, I still do not fault th police or prosecutors (as long as they acted in good faith and within the law).

But the problem is that the death penalty is final; there's no righting a wrong decision when that type of punishment is applied. And given the alarming amount of wrongful convictions that take place, to me, it's simply not worth the risk to execute people.

---

99% of the time a life sentence is final as well.

Your argument, or how it appears is, "since there was a mistake made in this case and others, the death penalty should not be applied." By that same logic, any sentence that has been applied wrongly on occasion should not be implemented.

Whats the difference between someone getting the death sentence for a crime they didnt commit and spending the rest of their life behind bars for the same reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

99% of the time a life sentence is final as well.

Your argument, or how it appears is, "since there was a mistake made in this case and others, the death penalty should not be applied." By that same logic, any sentence that has been applied wrongly on occasion should not be implemented.

Whats the difference between someone getting the death sentence for a crime they didnt commit and spending the rest of their life behind bars for the same reason?

---

I don't know how I can make this any clearer:

The difference is that we can fix our mistake if we lock up the wrong person. If we kill the wrong person, we can't fix our mistake.

I am willing to take the risk of somebody (even myself) being wrongfully imprisoned, in the interest of public safety. I am not willing to take the risk of wrongfully executing somebody (especially myself ~;) ) in the interest of people wanting to satisfy their bloodlust.

The distinction is quite simple, really...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

It can serve a purpose though, Don. If you can put away a criminal you could not have before, a criminal who causes far more grief and suffering than the jailhouse witness, then I don't see a problem.

As to the point of the thread, agreed, one of the biggest reasons against the death penalty and why it should never be allowed in a decent society.

---

How could you possibly have any sense of trust in the testimony? You are literally holding the man's life in his hands and telling him that if he testifies to what you want him to testify to, he'll get some of it back quicker.

The only way I could possibly see them being fair is for the DA to say "Okay, Mr. Corleone. You're up for 12 to 25. We'll knock that down to 8 to 12, regardless of what you say, but if we find out you're lying, you'll have the original sentence, plus perjury time". In other words, his time out of jail is dependent on the honesty & accuracy of his testimony, not whether or not he actually 'gives the goods' on somebody. You're giving him one hell of a motive to frame somebody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I don't know how I can make this any clearer:

The difference is that we can fix our mistake if we lock up the wrong person. If we kill the wrong person, we can't fix our mistake.

I am willing to take the risk of somebody (even myself) being wrongfully imprisoned, in the interest of public safety. I am not willing to take the risk of wrongfully executing somebody (especially myself ~;) ) in the interest of people wanting to satisfy their bloodlust.

The distinction is quite simple, really...

---

Not that simple!

How do you fix being sodomized Goofball? How do you give him back those 19 years?

How many 25 year old guys, if given the choice between immediate execution and spending 19 years in prison, getting out at age 44 would choose prison? Of course they don't give you the choice of immediate execution, instead they drag it out for something like 11 years now, IIRC.

Long term imprisonment doesn't seem all that much more humane to me. I don't much care for wrongfully imprisoning somebody (especially myself ~;) ) in the interest of people wanting to satisfy their sadism.

Miscarriages of justice happen regardless of the system held to. Errors that do occur are more properly understood as procedural not conceptual.

Save for pacifist positions killing is considered appropriate as a societal defense. This is the justification of having a military. The basis for the Death Penalty is retribution. If one holds that there are acts that are so egregious that the offender can no longer be part of society then the guilty should be killed. Life imprisonment is cruel and unusual punishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

For once, Pindar is right. ~:cheers:

---

Once?


"A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

IMHO, some of you guys have seriously devalued concepts of the gift of life itself.

Execution more humane? It's not even on the same level. Totally incomparable, because it's plain old "lights out" for the executed criminal. How can one measure a life of imprisonment against oblivion? Apples and oranges.

If that same criminal were alive, he would still have the opportunity (albeit limited by his own actions) to develop himself as a human being. There would still be something to be extracted from his time on this planet.

OK, so what if he doesn't choose to grow and better himself, and remains a savage dog of a man? Well, it largely doesn't matter, because he has been removed from polite society anyway.

Cruel and unusual punishment? I don't think so. Rather, it is an opportunity, whether or not the lifer realises it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Yeah, his lack of bitterness is truly remarkable. If that happened to me I'd be suing everyone I possibly could.

---

Oh ya baby.

I agree with you. Roark. A human life is more valuable, then a Death.

Who says you need to make prison too comfortable ? Liberals yes. Conservatives No.

Prisoners, should pay for their time in prison. Either, while they are in there, by working or when they get out, by paying of the debt. This will make crime cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

One might just call you Naive, Roark.

Life is great, bla bla. Yeah, it is. But when you commit a crime, you put your life in the hands of the state that you have hurt. If execution is the best way to get the miscreant out of the damageable public, then so be it. Be damned if these people should go on living in prison, with cable TV and all, at the expense of our tax dollars. That's money that should be going to schools, police stations, fire stations, and homeless shelters. Not condemned felons.

---

I'm not talking about concepts like utility or economic efficiency here.

I was actually just challenging the idea that the value of a human life can be measured in such superficial terms.

I won't try to convert you from your viewpoint on corrections policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Forced Labor for a fixed period without possibility of getting out early is something i'd support. But good luck getting any liberal, and some conservatives, to agree with that.

---

What happened to the good old days of using them for free labor? Highways, parks etc need to be cleaned. And I would like to smack whoever got these scumbags 'conjugal' visits.

Azi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

IMHO, some of you guys have seriously devalued concepts of the gift of life itself.

Execution more humane? It's not even on the same level. Totally incomparable, because it's plain old "lights out" for the executed criminal. How can one measure a life of imprisonment against oblivion? Apples and oranges.

If that same criminal were alive, he would still have the opportunity (albeit limited by his own actions) to develop himself as a human being. There would still be something to be extracted from his time on this planet.

OK, so what if he doesn't choose to grow and better himself, and remains a savage dog of a man? Well, it largely doesn't matter, because he has been removed from polite society anyway.

Cruel and unusual punishment? I don't think so. Rather, it is an opportunity, whether or not the lifer realises it.

---

Is this an argument that society doesn't have the right to kill in order to protect itself? If so, then you must support disbanding the military. If not, then you have already placed a value over and above the preservation of life.

Now if society does have the right to kill this should apply to threats within as well as without.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

First time I recall being on the same side as you in an argument. :book:

---

"Once you strike down the path to the dark side..." ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voigtkampf

"Once you strike down the path to the dark side..." ~;)

---

Voigtkampf knows me too well. You Gelatinous Cube, you must also learn the ways of the Dark Side. Then you will be unstopable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

I'm not talking about concepts like utility or economic efficiency here.

I was actually just challenging the idea that the value of a human life can be measured in such superficial terms.

I won't try to convert you from your viewpoint on corrections policy.

---

But if life cannot be measured by such a crass yardstick then human life must be something more than just a warm body.

A reverence for human life, to have any meaning, must incorporate the spiritual side of our lives. If not, how do we differ from cattle or chickens?

Doesn't our conduct give value to our lives, and cannot that same conduct take it away?

I believe there is still a case for the death sentence, take for example serial paedophiles or the failed suicide bombers. We have clear proof in the case of the suicide bombers including confessions and I don't think anyone can disagree that they deserve to die, alright I'm sure some people here will disagree.

As for the arguments that say we would deprive the criminal of his chance of reform or to show remorse, tough. Why would we want to let someone like this back into the community? I don't. Do they deserve a chance to make a new life? No, I don't think so. They deserve to be punished, not treated like some sort of victim, and if the crime is serious enough that they deserve to lose their lives then so be it, they shouldn't have done the crime.

And yes, I see this as justice not revenge, why would I want revenge on someone who committed a crime against someone I don't even know and never would know.

There is also the question of what is the value of a human life. I would say it is all dependant on whose life for example I value the life of my wife and family much more than, for example, someone who lives half a world away. Hell, if I had to make the choice I would sacrifice 1000 strangers to save my family if I had to.

The death penalty should only be used when there is no doubt whatsoever as to the guilt of the person convicted, and if the crime is very severe. In some cases the crimes comitted show that the perpetrator is not human at all, therefore does not deserve the same treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The Cubical side is the greatest. All hail me.

---

Tough choice between:

“Your faith in geometry will be your undoing.”

“Twice the pride, double the fall.”

And, my favorite atm,

“Dark Side; be there or be square.”

@ Pindar: That is not what I was driving at. War is a different matter altogether. You are kinda insinuating that the only way to protect society from the worst of domestic criminals is to execute them, when (IMHO) this is not necessarily the case. Yes, it is more efficient, and permanent, but it is that permanency which disturbs me about capital punishment... There's no rewind button. No compensation can be made to that rare creature: the wrongly accused. It's just lights out. This is why my current opinion on capital punishment errs on the side of caution. I can't shrug off collateral damage as easily as certain others in this discussion.

The vague point that I was dancing around earlier in the thread is that I believe we should be advanced enough as a society to not have to incorporate primeval pack/herd concepts like utilitarianism and efficiency when we consider the value of a human life. Once again, I'm having trouble explaining myself, haha...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

But if life cannot be measured by such a crass yardstick then human life must be something more than just a warm body.

A reverence for human life, to have any meaning, must incorporate the spiritual side of our lives. If not, how do we differ from cattle or chickens?

Doesn't our conduct give value to our lives, and cannot that same conduct take it away?

---

Well said, mate. At various points in my life, it is this same idea which has swayed me to be in favour of the death penalty. Forfeiture of a right to exist through despicable acts. As others on the board have said, though, I think that capital punishment exists largely as a cathartic form of retribution for society. That's not good enough for me personally, and rationally.

BROCKTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A man lifting his infant daughter out of his car was killed in an apparent case of road rage by a motorist "who obviously exploded" and shot him four times at close range in front of dozens of witnesses, authorities said.

The victim's 10-month-old girl was covered with blood but uninjured when police found her in a car seat on the floor of the vehicle.

Walter R. Bishop, 60, who was taking medication for depression, was arrested Tuesday and charged with first-degree murder in the death of 27-year-old Sandro Andrade. He pleaded innocent and was ordered held without bail; a hearing was scheduled for August 26.

Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said Bishop had made a calculated decision to "shoot a man in cold blood in broad daylight on the streets of Brockton."

Police Chief Paul Studenski described it as a case of road rage.

Bishop's attorney, Kevin Reddington, said Andrade had provoked his client during a traffic altercation.

"We have a homicide that resulted from a circumstance where somebody picked a fight with an individual who obviously exploded," Reddington said. Bishop, a former soldier and security guard, had recently begun taking two medications for depression, he said.

Bishop told investigators he was driving his wife to the train station when Andrade's vehicle backed toward him on Main Street, Cruz said. The two exchanged heated words.

"He said his wife was scared, and he said he was angry at that encounter," Cruz said of Bishop. "He said he made up his mind right there that he had to do something."

After dropping his wife off, he allegedly returned to the scene of the confrontation, pointed a handgun through an open window and fired, police said.

"Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop! Four shots. It sounded like a cap gun," Louis McPhee, the manager of a car wash across the street, told The Boston Globe. "The guy was lying there in his own blood with a hole in his head and his arm still on the baby."

Bishop left before police arrived, but witnesses gave investigators his license plate number and police found him at his home.

Police said Bishop has a valid handgun license.

What vile scum eh this is why we need the death penalty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

...who was taking medication for depression, ...
....What vile scum eh this is why we need the death penalty

---

Sounds like this guy has a "Mental illness". I am sure we all know people with some level of mental illness. When they are under the influence of this, they may not think "rationally".

Currently, society does not treat "Mental Illness" with the same respect that they give to other illnesses. This is wrong and people should be treated with respect, if they have it. We should look after people with "Mental Illness", so that events like what happended above do not occur.

In the case above, some blame needs to be pointed at society for not doing enough and therefore the man is not solely to blame, and should not be "killed". However, he should be placed in a secure facility until he is "better", however long that takes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

Sounds like this guy has a "Mental illness". I am sure we all know people with some level of mental illness. When they are under the influence of this, they may not think "rationally".

Currently, society does not treat "Mental Illness" with the same respect that they give to other illnesses. This is wrong and people should be treated with respect, if they have it. We should look after people with "Mental Illness", so that events like what happended above do not occur.

In the case above, some blame needs to be pointed at society for not doing enough and therefore the man is not solely to blame, and should not be "killed". However, he should be placed in a secure facility until he is "better", however long that takes.

---

[/QUOTE]Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said Bishop had made a calculated decision to "shoot a man in cold blood in broad daylight on the streets of Brockton.".[/QUOTE]

Ah yes a calculated decision sounds like an illness to me

Woulda been better if he didn't have ready access to a firearm...

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

Woulda been better if he didn't have ready access to a firearm...

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... ;-)

---

Thats for another thread ~D

I am beginning to understand that quite a few "Americans" are really "ruthless" people and lack even any understanding.

Don't look right ? Kill them (see KKK history, Native Indian History)
Don't believe right ? Kill them (see answer to Terrorism thread)
Don't feel right in the head ? Kill them (see posts above)
...
One day. Too old ? Kill them (refer logan run).

Be wary of the direction you are heading in when you condone the state for killing individuals. One day it might be you. All it takes is a law change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

I am beginning to understand that quite a few "Americans" are really "ruthless" people and lack even any understanding.

Don't look right ? Kill them (see KKK history, Native Indian History)
Don't believe right ? Kill them (see answer to Terrorism thread)
Don't feel right in the head ? Kill them (see posts above)
...
One day. Too old ? Kill them (refer logan run).

Be wary of the direction you are heading in when you condone the state for killing individuals. One day it might be you. All it takes is a law change.

---

This isn't about race or religon its about a man who made a desicon to kill a young father with the infant in his arms. If that makes me "ruthless" so be it

P.S I only support the death penalty for murder and only that if they try to change the law for a lesser crime ill be the first one yelling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Jeez, maybe the thread about arrogant Europeans was right.

---

I don't think I am being arrogant. Also I am not European.

Just I do not support the state having the right to kill it's own citizens, to which they have been elected to represent. As I said the "Death Penalty" is a slippery slope to follow.

In some places the "society" allows the rape of women because of some family member offence. This is wrong. Some women get stoned to death for adultery. The "Death Penalty" is from a "barbaric age", and soceity should evolve from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Speaking of the Death Penalty, I know they let you choose how you're gonna die here in the US, but do we have an option for beheading? After watching a documentary that included some info on lethal injection, I think i'd much rather be decapitated if I ever wind up on Death Row.

~:cheers:

---

I'd take decapitation over the State-approved methods, anyday. Although I'd want either a guillotine or a master axeman. A botched beheading could be nasty...

I read somewhere recently that crucifixion is still legal in two countries... That would NOT be cool. I'll try to google some more on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

Thats for another thread ~D

---

Yeah, sorry... I knew I was being bad when I posted it... I'm not an anti-gun fanatic... honestly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

Just I do not support the state having the right to kill it's own citizens, to which they have been elected to represent. As I said the "Death Penalty" is a slippery slope to follow.

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roak

Woulda been better if he didn't have ready access to a firearm...

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... ;-)

---

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

Which is the state allowing the individual to chose to kill another human being that just happens to be in the woman's womb.

See two can play that game. ~D :duel:

Some interesting points raised.

Quote:

---

Sounds like this guy has a "Mental illness". I am sure we all know people with some level of mental illness. When they are under the influence of this, they may not think "rationally".

Currently, society does not treat "Mental Illness" with the same respect that they give to other illnesses. This is wrong and people should be treated with respect, if they have it. We should look after people with "Mental Illness", so that events like what happended above do not occur.

In the case above, some blame needs to be pointed at society for not doing enough and therefore the man is not solely to blame, and should not be "killed". However, he should be placed in a secure facility until he is "better", however long that takes.

---

This my friend is crap. People need to stand up and take responsibility for their own actions, if they are unable to e.g. mentally unable to take responsibility then it is the duty of their families to do so, only in the case where there is no one to help them does society as a whole come in.

Even if he was mentally ill, he shot a man in front of his baby daughter, he needs to be punished not treated. If he can be treated at the same time then all the better but the man is a murderer, you don't put him in a hospital for six months pronounce him cured and set him free, that's just wrong.

Quote:

---

The vague point that I was dancing around earlier in the thread is that I believe we should be advanced enough as a society to not have to incorporate primeval pack/herd concepts like utilitarianism and efficiency when we consider the value of a human life. Once again, I'm having trouble explaining myself, haha...

---

Fair point, but, what is the value of a human life? Are all lives equally valuable?

Before we start with the "Everyone has a right to life", no they don't, if they did there would be no death, no abortion etc.

Ok, individuals. Is everyones life of equal importance, I would say that if you answeres yes then you're wrong. For example, would you place more value on the life of your wife or mother than that of a thrice convicted paedophile, I sure as hell would (strange saying that, as hell isn't sure at all, anyway) and I would say that if you don't you seriously need to sort out your values.

So I would say that there is a case for the death sentence, and the case in example may be one but I'm not sure without knowing more about it. But saying that he can't take responsibility becuase he was depressed is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

@ Pindar: That is not what I was driving at. War is a different matter altogether. You are kinda insinuating that the only way to protect society from the worst of domestic criminals is to execute them, when (IMHO) this is not necessarily the case. Yes, it is more efficient, and permanent, but it is that permanency which disturbs me about capital punishment... There's no rewind button. No compensation can be made to that rare creature: the wrongly accused. It's just lights out. This is why my current opinion on capital punishment errs on the side of caution. I can't shrug off collateral damage as easily as certain others in this discussion.

---

War and capital punishment are both state sponsored killing. If one is opposed to state sponsored killing then both activities would need to be rejected. If the permanency of error is the issue: killing the innocent, this again applies to both cases. The wrong man may be convicted and subsequently executed, in war: friendly fire, collateral damaged etc. are terms used for the unintended death of innocents. The key difference between the two actions is that in a criminal trial, evidence has been presented and the convicted has been found guilty based upon that evidence. In a war scenario: victims of friendly fire, collateral damage etc. have no guilt that can be assigned. Further, such occurs on a far greater scale. It is therefore a very strained view that would recognize war as legitimate but exclude capital punishment.

Quote:

---

ue point that I was dancing around earlier in the thread is that I believe we should be advanced enough as a society to not have to incorporate primeval pack/herd concepts like utilitarianism and efficiency when we consider the value of a human life. Once again, I'm having trouble explaining myself, haha...

---

Some of the bedrock justifications for government are derived from utility and efficiency arguments. The tenor of your rhetoric would seem to suggest we should move beyond such notions. This of course is an anarchist view.

The taking of human life is of such importance that it is reserved to the state alone. It thereby reflects the measure of the collective will. The value of human life can be measured by the degree of retribution brought to bare to preserve its sanctity. A system that does not demand the greatest sacrifice from those who have taken life violates the basic equity that informs systems of justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

I am beginning to understand that quite a few "Americans" are really "ruthless" people and lack even any understanding.


The "Death Penalty" is from a "barbaric age", and soceity should evolve from it.

---

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. Like the prim little girl who squirms when her shepard uncle shoots a wolf moving on his sheep: those who through urbanization and appealing to the vagaries of the sophisticate have cut themselves off from the realities of life illustrate in stark fashion the social maturity that separates the slave from the free man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

Woulda been better if he didn't have ready access to a firearm...

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... ;-)

---

He'd have hit him with the car instead.



I don't see the initial post as an argument against the death penalty but rather for reform of the criminal trial process.

The war argument is a good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

"Police said Bishop has a valid handgun license."

What vile scum eh this is why we need the death penalty

---

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

No we need them to be safe from wackos like him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Is this an argument that society doesn't have the right to kill in order to protect itself? If so, then you must support disbanding the military. If not, then you have already placed a value over and above the preservation of life.

Now if society does have the right to kill this should apply to threats within as well as without.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Forced Labor for a fixed period without possibility of getting out early is something i'd support. But good luck getting any liberal, and some conservatives, to agree with that.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Your protecting everyone's tax dollars.

Off with their heads!

---

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.
:charge:

bullets cost to much... a rope is cheap and can be used again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Criminals will get guns whether the law says they can or not. This isn't like cushy Europe, here in america you can get anything you want if you look hard enough.

The only viable solution is to encourage people to buy guns, and give free public training courses in proper firearms use.

---

so their kids can steal one and shoot his friend for loosing a game of dragonball on the PS2

Not if part of the training programs include eddie eagle for kids. http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

Quote:

---

Posted by Pindar
Is this an argument that society doesn't have the right to kill in order to protect itself? If so, then you must support disbanding the military. If not, then you have already placed a value over and above the preservation of life.

Now if society does have the right to kill this should apply to threats within as well as without.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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?

---

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally 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.

Quote:

---

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

---

So death is better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.
:charge:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

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.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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...

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

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....

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.)

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

...
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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

.. 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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So death is better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes.

---

---

I'll allow that to speak for itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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... :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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".

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

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.