RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 8:44:37 PM)

 

         Well if you understood what I meant, we achieved communication [:D] .  I'll settle for that. 

       As for "keep trying," I'm gonna leave ya'll to it.  There is a nekkid woman around here who still hasn't guessed how many wooden spoons I have in that bedside drawer.  Have fun.



Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 8:57:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



        Well if you understood what I meant, we achieved communication [:D] .  I'll settle for that. 

      As for "keep trying," I'm gonna leave ya'll to it.  There is a nekkid woman around here who still hasn't guessed how many wooden spoons I have in that bedside drawer.  Have fun.


We understood what you meant.

If you are convicted of a crime you didnt commit, you would go uncomplainingly and willingly to the death chamber trusting in the essential wisdom of the death penalty.

Enjoy your evening,

Sinergy 



juliaoceania -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 9:21:47 PM)

quote:

 I support it for economic reasons. 


I wanted to show how expensive it is to impose the death penalty...

quote:

Key Points

  • The California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. (This figure does not take into account additional court costs for post-conviction hearings in state and federal courts, estimated to exceed several million dollars.)


  • With 11 executions spread over 27 years, on a per execution basis, California and federal taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each execution.


  • It costs approximately $90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row, than in the general prison population or $57.5 million annually.


  • The Attorney General devotes about 15% of his budget, or $11 million annually to death penalty cases.


  • The California Supreme Court spends $11.8 million on appointed counsel for death row inmates.


  • The Office of the State Public Defender and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center spend a total of $22.3 million on defense for indigent defendants facing death.


  • The federal court system spends approximately $12 million on defending death row inmates in federal court.


  • No figures were given for the amount spent by the offices of County District Attorneys on the prosecution of capital cases, however these expenses are presumed to be in the tens of millions of dollars each year.

     
    Source:
    Tempest, Rone, "Death Row Often Means a Long Life", Los Angeles Times, March 6, 2005     http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost
    •  
    quote:

    Is life in prison without the possibility of parole a better option? It costs more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life. A 1993 California study argues that each death penalty case costs at least $1.25 million more than a regular murder case and a sentence of life without possibility of parole. California judges have the option of sentencing convicted murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. There are currently more than 1, 700 people in California who have received this alternative sentence, which includes no appeals process. According to the governor's office, no one sentenced to life without parole has been released since the state provided this option in 1977.
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/01/28/ED8333.DTL

     Now I suppose we could go ahead and do away with all the special appeals that these people get, but that would just increase the likelihood of executing more innocent people.



    Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 9:36:14 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: juliaoceania


  • Now I suppose we could go ahead and do away with all the special appeals that these people get, but that would just increase the likelihood of executing more innocent people.



    • If I remember correctly, selfbnd411 was of the opinion that executing innocent people was not really a valid reason to not utilize capital punishment, since it saved money for the taxpayer.

    Thank you for posting the comparison of costs between keeping somebody in prison for life and executing them, and showing that the idea that it costs more to incarcerate for life is incorrect.

    I no longer have a clear understanding of the rationality or logic of TheHeretic's position on the matter.

    Sinergy 



    selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 9:45:24 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
    Now I suppose we could go ahead and do away with all the special appeals that these people get, but that would just increase the likelihood of executing more innocent people.


    We did that 11 years ago in the Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.  It was passed by overwhelming bipartisan supermajorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.

    Any study of the economics of the death penalty would have to account for the fact that we no longer allow inmates to file frivolous appeals causing 10+ year delays in execution and costing mountains of taxpayer money to consider.  The studies that pre-date 1996 are invalid given these reforms.

    Thursday, May 05, 2005
    Is AEDPA unconstitutional?
    Posted by Lyle Denniston at 06:11 PM

    "The 1996 law was expressly intended by Congress to sharply curtail the right of state prison inmates, under federal habeas, to challenge their state convictions and sentences. A key section of AEDPA bars a federal court from granting any habeas writ on an issue that was raised in state court, unless the state court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application, of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” (That is 28 U.S.C. 2254-d-1.)"

    http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/05/is_aedpa_uncons.html



    Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 9:51:39 PM)

    I was with somebody for a while in law school, selfbnd411.  We talked about this when she was doing her class on litigation.

    If I remember correctly, there are 7 standard appeals filed by the state automatically in capital cases. 

    Timothy McVeigh is the only individual in my memory who specifically argued successfully for these appeals to not be filed.  In other words, he told the State to go ahead and punch his ticket.

    This is in addition to the myriad of appeals the person may or may not file, which are the ones you are referring to.

    Since you have decided to unilaterally discount any study prior to 1996, please provide a link showing the costs from conviction to execution of the death penalty since 1996, so that we can compare it to what was provided which shows what it costs to incarcerate an individual for the rest of their life.

    Sinergy



    juliaoceania -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 9:54:22 PM)

    My posts were about my state, which while it has the death penalty, it rarely exercises it. I cannot for the life of me understand how it is imposed with a rubber stamp in states like Texas and Florida, and I will say I have zero respect for people who support this because it makes it highly probable many innocent people will die than in cases where there are at least lengthy appeals processes in place to prevent this. How could you support a less expensive alternative knowing the potential for abusing it? It is unfathomable to me.



    Vendaval -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 11:31:41 PM)

    Regarding the economic costs, post - Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
     
    Circa 2006 -

    NEW RESOURCES: Final Report on the Death Penalty to the Washington State Bar Association

    The Death Penalty Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Defense of the Washington State Bar has prepared a report on the state's death penalty that will be submitted to the Bar Association's Board of Governors in early 2007. The Subcommittee was formed to examine the costs of the state's death penalty and to recommend whether the death penalty should be continued, given the expenses and the state's experience in carrying out death sentences. The Death Penalty Subcommittee was made up of supporters and opponents of the death penalty, all with extensive experience with the criminal justice system.

    The report noted that since the death penalty was reinstated in Washington in 1981, there have been 254 death eligible cases. Of these, death notices were filed by the prosecution in 79 cases (31.1%). Death sentences were imposed in 30 cases, or 11.8% of the death eligible cases. Twenty-three cases have completed appellate review, and 4 inmates have been executed. Three of the four inmates executed waived part of their appeals, thereby hastening their executions. The other 19 cases were reversed, almost all resulting in a sentence of life without parole.

    With respect to the costs of the death penalty, the report concluded:

    • At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 inadditional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel.

    • On direct appeal, the cost of appellate defense averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases.

    • Personal restraint petitions filed in death penalty cases on average cost an additional$137,000 in public defense costs. "

     
    Death Penalty in California is Very Costly
    According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, housing an inmate in California's corrections system costs an average of $34,150 per year, though that figure is higher for those on death row or serving a sentence of life-without-parole. In capital cases, a more expensive investigation and prosecution process, as well as long and complicated appeals, raises the costs significantly. Only about 1% of homicides in the state are tried as capital cases, but those cases cost taxpayers two to three times more than non-capital cases. Critics of the death penalty argue that the money spent on death sentences would be better spent on police, mental health and child abuse prevention than on executions. "To spend so many millions of dollars on such a small number of capital trials really doesn't make much sense," said Lance Lindsey of Death Penalty Focus.

    The News-Sentinel's investigation revealed the following facts and figures for California:


    $7.4 billion: 2006-07 budget for the California Corrections Department.
    $250 million: Average cost of 11 executions in 27 years.
    $114 million: Costs of death penalty to taxpayers (annual).
    $34,150: Average annual cost of housing an inmate in state prison.
    9,000: Average number of pages of court transcripts in capital cases.  645: Inmates on death row.
    $200: Cost of lethal injection chemicals.
    49: Average age at time of execution.
    33: Death Row inmates who died of natural causes.
    17.5: Average time spent on Death Row.
    13: Inmates executed in California since 1978.
    (Lodi News-Sentinel, March 11, 2006).

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2058



    SDFemDom4cuck -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 11:50:34 PM)

    quote:

    Timothy McVeigh is the only individual in my memory who specifically argued successfully for these appeals to not be filed.  In other words, he told the State to go ahead and punch his ticket.


    Gary Gilmore did this also. His lawyers filed automatic appeals and he demanded all appeals be dropped. He was executed a 3 months after being convicted via firing squad (his chosen method) in Utah. The first person in the US after the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 (I think that is the year).



    NeedToUseYou -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/13/2007 1:44:58 AM)

    Just a general reply to the theme of thread.

    It seems the primary argument here is if one person is wrongly put to death then we shouldn't have a death penalty. It doesn't really seem to hinge around the concept of the death penalty. As in if it were a 100% accurate going off the reasons given in most of the arguments most would be fine with it(why point out the individual  failures, if ones is opposed to the concept). But here is what many apparently are missing about probability of death. Almost every item you buy or interact with has an acceptable risk of death attached to it. Your car for example could be way way way safer than it is, but the auto industry simply calculates the cost of the increase in safety or reliability versus the cost of litigation. This isn't just the Auto Industry though, it is every industry, it is in the building guidlines, everything.

    What's my point? Well, the argument that one must attain 0 percent probability in regards to life death decisions when possible  is non sense. Your heaters they sell at Wal-Mart for example, some models come with two safety fuses some come with one, the consumer doesn't no the difference, so they buy a heater that is cheaper by 0.25. The manufacturer knows that a few of those single fuse heaters will end up not working right, and the fuse won't blow before catching fire. And they know it will eventually lead to someones death. But they've run the numbers and decided the savings outweigh the cost of litigation. Factories, I worked in could make them much safer, and healthier. But they weigh the cost of a new 1,000,000 dollar machine versus the chance a worker will kill themselves working with a less safe model. They don't change the filters as oftern as they could, lead to increased fumes being breathed in. We produce power with coal and other dirty energy sources because a few people dying off early wieghed against the benefit of cheap energy is apparently worth it.

    The point is life and death decisions based on probability of failure are incorporated into  every aspect of your daily life. There aren't many things that don't rely on probability of causing death or injury(catastrophic isolated failutre) in determining the ideal model. And everything could be made safer, if the premise was reducing death to zero. Unfortunately it makes it unaffordable.

    Thus why the assumption that, in order for the death penalty to be a valid recourse, the probability of wrongful death must equal zero, is not a real world viewpoint, as nothing else we interact with holds up to this standard.

    If that is to be the argument, then whoever is adhering to that viewpoint has a shitload of work to get to, before the single digit death totals inflicted by the legal system are a concern.

    Unfortunately in any real world system, a probability for wrongful death, is an absolute necessity.

    I'm not saying one can't be opposed to the death penalty for valid philosophical reasons, but the probability zero argument doesn't hold up under any other circumstance so it doesn't seem to apply. But if one wishes to keep that viewpoint, then I'm loathe to see the full list of objections.





    meatcleaver -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/13/2007 2:19:23 AM)

    The probability of death by execution in the US is far higher if you are a black male than a white male. Such a skewed result brings into question the integrity of the whole judicial system. I can understand some white males being for the death penalty as the chances are it won't be them that pay for a flawed system but black males and they are too cocky and too numerous and anyway, one or two less could be seen as a good thing. (sarc)

    But the fundemental issue is one of principle. To support state murder is a dangerous game, no matter how wrapped up in the flag you might be. Then there is the human level, the principle of basic humanity and not lowering oneself to the level of a murderer but of maintaining the moral high ground on the point of principle that one should not kill a fellow human if at all possible.



    stella40 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/13/2007 2:44:27 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Sinergy

    If I remember correctly, there are 7 standard appeals filed by the state automatically in capital cases.



    Correct. From what I can see the prosecutors are the ones who benefit most from the death penalty and use up so much of taxes for their own legal fees. Why do you think so many of them favour the death penalty when seeking election?

    I'm actually surprised that nobody has challenged this practice under the Eighth Amendment as a 'cruel and unusual punishment'.

    I mean, let's face it. I come up to you, and I tell you I'm going to kill you, but not now, but at some point in the future, but I will keep you locked up in a room. Then every so often I'm going to come and taunt you and suggest that I may not actually kill you, it depends, I may decide to kill you, I may not. And this will happen over ten years.

    I then come and tell you that I'm going to kill you on a certain day four months from now. Then the day before you are about to be killed, I come and tell you that I'm going to let you live, but I may still kill you at some point in the future. And this happens several times over the space of ten years.

    Now how would society react if this is how a sadistic murderer treated his victim? Would that not be seen as cruel? Callous? Heinous?

    But this is what's happening to Death Row prisoners. All of them. And I'm sorry, but most of those sitting on Death Row showed their victims more mercy and compassion than they themselves receive from the criminal justice system.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Sinergy
    Timothy McVeigh is the only individual in my memory who specifically argued successfully for these appeals to not be filed. In other words, he told the State to go ahead and punch his ticket.


    I think you're right. But there are others who have also fought to stop this process and volunteer early for execution. Wilford Berry in Ohio for example, and (if I'm not mistaken) Zane Hill in North Carolina.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Sinergy
    This is in addition to the myriad of appeals the person may or may not file, which are the ones you are referring to.


    Agreed. One of the most common is the constitutionality of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment challenging the method of execution. A good example is Florida, which until late 2000 had electrocution as its sole method, a string of botched executions - Judy Buenoano in 1995, Jesse Joe Tafero in 1996, Pedro Medina in 1997, Allen Lee Davis in 2000 where the condemned routinely challenged the method of electrocution under the Eighth Amendment until Judge Justice Shaw in the US Supreme Court upheld an appeal and ruled that electrocution is a cruel and unusual punishment (in Moore vs. Provenzano).

    Other fairly regular reasons for appeal include Virginia's 21 Day Rule (no new evidence considered arising 21 days from conviction) and the court appointing inadequate defense counsel in Texas. There are also the appeals arising from mental illness, mental retardation, and so on.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Sinergy
    Since you have decided to unilaterally discount any study prior to 1996, please provide a link showing the costs from conviction to execution of the death penalty since 1996, so that we can compare it to what was provided which shows what it costs to incarcerate an individual for the rest of their life.


    Here again I agree with you. This strikes me as odd to discount any study prior to 1996. Just because of the introduction of the Effective Death Penalty Act 1996?

    The Effective Death Penalty Act has had minimal effect as almost all the appeals are not frivolous at all but they are the appeals brought by the prosecution (habeus corpus, writ of certiori, etc), challenges to methods of executions under the Eighth Amendment (and in 1996 four of the five methods were still employed - hanging, firing squad, electruction and lethal injection - depending on which state executed you), appealsbrought about my mental retardation, mental illness, crimes committed whilst the prisoner was a juvenile, and so on.




    stella40 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/13/2007 2:50:18 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

    My posts were about my state, which while it has the death penalty, it rarely exercises it. I cannot for the life of me understand how it is imposed with a rubber stamp in states like Texas and Florida, and I will say I have zero respect for people who support this because it makes it highly probable many innocent people will die than in cases where there are at least lengthy appeals processes in place to prevent this. How could you support a less expensive alternative knowing the potential for abusing it? It is unfathomable to me.


    Me too.



    stella40 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/13/2007 4:14:00 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
    It seems the primary argument here is if one person is wrongly put to death then we shouldn't have a death penalty.


    Not true. The thread is about, unless I'm mistaken, the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent against crime. However the possibility of executing an innocent person is a real possibility whenever you have the death penalty.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
    It doesn't really seem to hinge around the concept of the death penalty. As in if it were a 100% accurate going off the reasons given in most of the arguments most would be fine with it(why point out the individual failures, if ones is opposed to the concept). But here is what many apparently are missing about probability of death. Almost every item you buy or interact with has an acceptable risk of death attached to it. Your car for example could be way way way safer than it is, but the auto industry simply calculates the cost of the increase in safety or reliability versus the cost of litigation. This isn't just the Auto Industry though, it is every industry, it is in the building guidlines, everything.


    I'm sorry, call me stupid if you wish, but I fail to see how anything here either justifies the death penalty or even explains the concept.

    'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' - THIS is the concept of the death penalty.

    Arguing about the probability of death to me is ridiculous. Can't you see that if this justifies the death penalty it also justifies killing? Wouldn't this be just the dream ticket for defense lawyers?

    "Yes well my client did actually run over Mr X's little boy and killed him. But we cannot overlook that walking along the street is a risky business, and it is possible to get killed."

    "Yes, my client did point the gun at Mr X and pulled the trigger, but he never really meant to kill him. You know, we could die at any time, and I guess Mr X was just a little unfortunate to be killed by the bullet hitting him in the wrong place."

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
    What's my point? Well, the argument that one must attain 0 percent probability in regards to life death decisions when possible is non sense. Your heaters they sell at Wal-Mart for example, some models come with two safety fuses some come with one, the consumer doesn't no the difference, so they buy a heater that is cheaper by 0.25. The manufacturer knows that a few of those single fuse heaters will end up not working right, and the fuse won't blow before catching fire. And they know it will eventually lead to someones death. But they've run the numbers and decided the savings outweigh the cost of litigation. Factories, I worked in could make them much safer, and healthier. But they weigh the cost of a new 1,000,000 dollar machine versus the chance a worker will kill themselves working with a less safe model. They don't change the filters as oftern as they could, lead to increased fumes being breathed in. We produce power with coal and other dirty energy sources because a few people dying off early wieghed against the benefit of cheap energy is apparently worth it.


    Oh right. I get you. So it doesn't matter that a few innocent people are executed so that society can have the benefit of having the death penalty?

    Okay, let me put another argument to you, using the same logic. Why don't we just stop prosecuting murderers who kill people by guns? I mean, not many people get murdered anyway and it's a necessary part of being able to have a gun and live in a safe society, isn't it?

    Oh, and while we're at it. We don't really have to prosecute those murderers who stab their victims to death. I mean, not many people get stabbed to death. And you know, knives are wonderful things, think of all the things they can cut and chop up, and they are really essential items in the kitchen aren't they now?

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
    The point is life and death decisions based on probability of failure are incorporated into every aspect of your daily life. There aren't many things that don't rely on probability of causing death or injury(catastrophic isolated failutre) in determining the ideal model. And everything could be made safer, if the premise was reducing death to zero. Unfortunately it makes it unaffordable.


    I really don't know what to write here. Three cups of coffee later and I still don't get the point.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
    Thus why the assumption that, in order for the death penalty to be a valid recourse, the probability of wrongful death must equal zero, is not a real world viewpoint, as nothing else we interact with holds up to this standard.


    You know, I've been anti-death penalty all along, I've taken a strong interest in this (I wanted to study law but didn't have the opportunity) since 1996-1997 and aside from the costs issue, the myth that it deters crime, and this desire for retribution (not justice, but retribution) and to see someone else 'get it' I've yet to hear one valid argument from anyone who is pro-death penalty to justify their reasoning.

    And I'm sorry, the death penalty has been around for thousands of years, and it hasn't stopped anybody being killed unlawfully. Thinking that it does isn't really very realistic, is it?

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
    If that is to be the argument, then whoever is adhering to that viewpoint has a shitload of work to get to, before the single digit death totals inflicted by the legal system are a concern.

    Unfortunately in any real world system, a probability for wrongful death, is an absolute necessity.


    A shitload of work? Okay, innocent people aside, I'm going to give you and all the pro-death penalty people some names and let's see what work you can come up with to justify the death penalty.

    Jerome Bowden in Alabama, Dalton Prejean in Louisiana, Ricky Ray Rector in Arkansas.

    What justification can you give for these people to be executed?

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
    I'm not saying one can't be opposed to the death penalty for valid philosophical reasons, but the probability zero argument doesn't hold up under any other circumstance so it doesn't seem to apply. But if one wishes to keep that viewpoint, then I'm loathe to see the full list of objections.


    My friend, you appear to have missed the point completely. Let me now illustrate to you and others this 'shitload of work' that I have already gotten through which forms the basis of my arguments.

    Let's start right at the beginning. American law. It is, like in the United Kingdom, known as 'case law'. This means the law is applied on the basis of statutes and court rulings as principles which are applicable to specific cases.

    In 38 US states you have statutes which allow for the imposition of the death penalty for certain offences - premeditated murder is one of these offences, if it is 'especially cruel, heinous or callous' (here off the top of my head I'm quoting the exact wording of the California statutes), which is whatever state it is, from Washington and California in the west to Georgia, Virginia and Florida in the east is a premeditated murder with an additional motivation - financial gain, a sexual motive, murder of a child, a US serviceman, a law enforcement officer, etc.

    Prosecutors in any of these states MAY seek the death penalty and secure a conviction against the accused which proves BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that the crime was premeditated and carries the specific set of circumstances which makes the murder especially cruel, heinous or callous. This is the basic principle of the death penalty. This is why the Furman case in 1976 was instrumental to the reintroduction of the death penalty making it constitutional, and this is why in every capital trial the trial has two phases - the guilt-innocence phase (to establish guilt or innocence) and the penalty phase (to establish aggravating factors which would justify the death penalty and mitigating factors which wouldn't).

    Now my argument is that time and time again prosecutors and juries fail to establish - beyond reasonable doubt - that a murder was fully premeditated, and that it was cruel, callous or especially heinous.

    Examples?
    Cathy Lynn Henderson, scheduled to be executed today in Texas for the 1994 murder of 3 month old Brandon Baugh who she was babysitting. She claimed she accidentally dropped the baby on his head. The prosecution have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she planned to murder this child.

    Jerome Bowden, Ricky Ray Rector, Dalton Prejean and others - executed despite having clear evidence of mental retardation.

    Wilford Berry in Ohio, one of those executed despite histories of mental illness.

    Here I'm not arguing about innocence, but about the failure to establish premeditation beyond all reasonable doubt, the basic principle of the death penalty.

    Then I can reverse my argument and cite California vs. Menendez in 1996 where two brothers blasted their parents to death with a shotgun for the insurance money, but had enough money to hire a team of lawyers to construct a brilliant defense claiming child abuse as a mitigating factor to get off with a life sentence. It took three trials, but it worked.

    Therefore I have to conclude that far from being a deterrent (which IMO the Menendez case above proves it isn't) the application of the death penalty in the United States is unjust, unfair, arbitrary, and for the good name of the American justice system should be abolished as soon as possible.





    caitlyn -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/13/2007 5:18:33 AM)

    The death penalty opens Pandora's box.
     
    You can have a Governor that signs a stack in one day. Isn't this supposed to be done with a little more reflection?
     
    You can have a state that doesn't give that many away, like California ... give one to a first time offender, like Scott Peterson. Bad crime ... not a lot of proof ... a lot of media attention.
     
    Cops frame people all the time. If you get to know enough cops, you will eventually run into one that thinks it's OK to manufacture evidence, because "that fucking skell has probably committed a ton of other crimes that we don't know about."
     
    So ... all the positive points about the death penalty, all go out the window, until such time as someone can figure out how to keep Pandora's box closed. Good luck with that.



    kittinSol -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/13/2007 6:11:10 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Sinergy

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



           Well if you understood what I meant, we achieved communication [:D] .  I'll settle for that. 

         As for "keep trying," I'm gonna leave ya'll to it.  There is a nekkid woman around here who still hasn't guessed how many wooden spoons I have in that bedside drawer.  Have fun.


    We understood what you meant.

    If you are convicted of a crime you didnt commit, you would go uncomplainingly and willingly to the death chamber trusting in the essential wisdom of the death penalty.

    Enjoy your evening,

    Sinergy 


    I think you're too kind, Sinergy. After all, with a name like 'TheHeretic', he would have been burnt at the stake not so long ago. And some would say, rightly so (although I'm obviously not one of them).

    Still, in our infinite wisdom and magnanimity, we shall hope he had fun with those wooden spoons. I wonder what he cooked. Devilled eggs? Perhaps it was to stir the sauce that was to accompany a well-hung pheasant that he had shot himself? After all, pheasants don't need lethal injections. Still, we can only hope he decapitated the bird before roasting it; with luck, whilst it was still alive.

    All this talk of killing just stroke a new chord with me: I wonder whether all those in favour of the death penalty would actually be able to kill the condemned themselves. It's all very well that most states have now managed to kill by remote (flicking a switch, or pressing on a syringe), thus making it easier on the executioner, but it's my belief it must take some guts (or lack of them) to be the person responsible for ending another human being's life [:(]






    sub4hire -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/13/2007 6:24:15 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: selfbnd411

    Among the conclusions:

    • Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

    • The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

    • Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.


    So, the whole idea is.  If I commit murder and you give me the death penalty (which would be throwing me in prison the rest of my natural life)  You are helping crime because I am not committing more crimes on the streeets?
    If you allow me to remain on the street after committing murder I will commit anywhere from 3 to 14 murders?
    How would anybody know that?  Who did I murder and why?  Perhap's it was a crime of passion?  Perhaps self defense?  Perhaps I am a psychopath?
    If I murdered under self defense does that mean I am going to have a minimum of 3 more self defense murders before I die?

    I don't understand how they can have accurate results when there really aren't any cases to get them from.  How many death penalty cases are on the streets that they are following to see how much more crime they do?




    kittinSol -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/13/2007 6:26:03 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

    Unfortunately in any real world system, a probability for wrongful death, is an absolute necessity.

    I'm not saying one can't be opposed to the death penalty for valid philosophical reasons, but the probability zero argument doesn't hold up under any other circumstance so it doesn't seem to apply. But if one wishes to keep that viewpoint, then I'm loathe to see the full list of objections.



    And another one bites the dust as once again, they vomit an argument that goes and kicks itself firmly in the arse! You can avoid a wrongful death by simply eradicating the death penalty. 

    Then again, you wouldn't object to being the victim of a miscarriage of justice, would you, as it would be an absolute necessity? Would you really laugh all the way to the leccy chair? Would you march out happily towards the gas chamber? Would you hop merrily on your way to the lethal needle?

    Your argument is simply presposterous.

    As for the list of objections, I suggest you just Google the subject and get some reading done. Gawd.



    Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/13/2007 6:37:29 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SDFemDom4cuck

    quote:

    Timothy McVeigh is the only individual in my memory who specifically argued successfully for these appeals to not be filed.  In other words, he told the State to go ahead and punch his ticket.


    Gary Gilmore did this also. His lawyers filed automatic appeals and he demanded all appeals be dropped. He was executed a 3 months after being convicted via firing squad (his chosen method) in Utah. The first person in the US after the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 (I think that is the year).



    Nice of that POS to take one for the team.

    Sinergy

    edited to point out that while I do not support the death penalty, it is possible to look back in history and view cases in the context of their time.  So please dont bring this post up in the future as evidence that I am a closet
    support of state sponsored murder.



    selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/13/2007 7:42:54 AM)

    Edited to try to get rid of that god-awful HTML coding...Please cut and paste into notepad before you paste into the message so you don't borrow unwanted code, ppl!

    Yah, I quoted these numbers in a reply many posts back.  I stated that it costs $700,000 extra in legal costs for a death penalty case.  Let's do some math:

    Average age @ time of death (49) - Average time on death row (17.5) = Average age at conviction (31.5)

    The average lifespan is now ~70 years.

    Cost to house an inmate for one year: $34150 x (70 years old at death from natural causes - 31.5 years old at conviction = 38.5 years in prison) = $1,314,775

    $1,314,775 to house > $700,000 to execute

    Ain't math beautiful?

    Now let's muddy the waters.  Note the assumption that it costs $34150 per year to house an inmate.  What about inflation?  The average cost to house an inmate in 2004 was $31,000.  That puts the rate of inflation at 5% per year.  In 38.5 years, the average cost to house an inmate at 5% inflation will be $223,449, and the total cost will be $3,865,709.

    $3,865,709 to house > $700,000 to execute

    Now let's assume that the prisoner doesn't simply drop dead at age 70.  He or she suffers from an extended illness, such as cancer.  What's that going to cost to treat?  Half of a person's lifetime medical costs accrue during the final half of a person's lifetime, or in our case from age 35 to 70--they're in prison and we pay for 50% of their lifetime health costs.  I don't have time to find the average lifetime cost for health care, but I believe it's in the low single digit millions.

    Finally, what about the value of the life the murderer took?  The victim is now dead--no longer a producing member of society.  A New York Times article reported that individuals value their lives at $100,000-$300,000 per year.  Assuming the victim and the murderer were the same age at time of death (31.5), and taking a mid-range number of $200,000/year of life, and assuming the victim would have lived to 70 otherwise, then we get:

    $200,000 x 38.5 = $6,300,000 in value lost to society by having a member of our "tribe" murdered.

    What if the victim had been able to have more children, each producing multi-millions in value to society?  What if the victim had been especially productive, or destined to produce especially productive offspring?

    If executing a murderer saves one life then we have:

    Value lost if execution prevents 1 murder = $6,300,000 > $700,000 cost to execute.

    Shoot let's take it a step further.  The opponents say that the impossibility of knowing with absolute certainty is important.  Well, what about the potential costs if a murderer escapes?  Or if he/she injures a prison guard?  Or damages the prison by backing up the toilet as prisoners do?  I think it's silly to make choices based on the impossibility of certainty, but hey...as you like it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/business/businessspecial3/11life.html?ex=1339214400&en=3be6cd4acfec8408&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
    http://www.mywhatever.com/cifwriter/library/sicktodeath/sick108.html



    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Vendaval

    Regarding the economic costs, post - Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

    Circa 2006 -


    $7.4 billion: 2006-07 budget for the California Corrections Department.
    $250 million: Average cost of 11 executions in 27 years.
    $114 million: Costs of death penalty to taxpayers (annual).
    $34,150: Average annual cost of housing an inmate in state prison.
    9,000: Average number of pages of court transcripts in capital cases. 645: Inmates on death row.
    $200: Cost of lethal injection chemicals.
    49: Average age at time of execution.
    33: Death Row inmates who died of natural causes.
    17.5: Average time spent on Death Row.
    13: Inmates executed in California since 1978.
    (Lodi News-Sentinel, March 11, 2006).

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2058



    Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
    0.046875