The Death Penalty

[CAV]

This way, to me, would be more punishable than death, and cheaper for the tax payers as well. I know the prisons are overrun as it is, but it costs tons of money to execute people and it would actually be cheaper to keep them alive.

I've never seen a single statistic that claims life imprisonment is cheaper than execution. The standard of living for criminals in the system is anything but punishing. Many prisoners enjoy benefits that aren't even available to many law-abiding citizens. That IMHO is outrageous.

I'll freely admit that mistakes do occur. The question is how often. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that we should lower our collective standards to address the occasional "what if". There are so many checks and balances in place these days that the risk of executing an innocent is minimal at best. Texas has already seen results from streamlining the death penalty process. Executions are now taking place in just years as opposed to decades. Is it working? Death penalty eligible crimes are down in just about every single category.

Do mistakes happen? Sure. Does that mean that no offender should be punished and held accountable just in case a mistake might happen? Absolutely not.

 

[llechler]

According to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, Although the costs of incarceration are expensive (about $20,000 per year per inmate), that amounts to $600,000 to $800,000 depending on whether a person lives 30 or 40 years after their sentencing. The death penalty, on the other hand, costs about $2 million per execution.

I think it is ridiculous to suggest that we should lower our collective standards to address the occasional "what if".

So you're saying that just because the majority of people executed deserve what's coming to them it is of little consequence the innocent people we kill? That doesn't make sense. So you're saying if you were put on death row and were truely innocent but no one believed you, we should still ban together chanting, "Fry him!"

 

[sirenofthestorm]

Ok if you guys want to talk a few statistics, in 2000, Illinois Governor George Ryan ordered a halt to executions because 13 inmates on death row were actually proven innocent. Since 1973, there have been 87 death row prisoners set free based on new evidence that exonerated them.

And as for prisons being overcrowded, yes they are. But mainly from the war on drugs as opposed to violent crimes with victims. I am always baffled when a drug lord or someone with RICO charges is in prison longer than a murder, wife beater, or child molester.

Recent studies in Oklahoma and California failed to find that capital punishment had a deterrent effect on violent crime and, in fact, found a significant increase in stranger killings and homicide rates after the death penalty had been reinstated. (William Bailey, “Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty,” Criminology, 1998; Ernie Thompson, “Effects of an Execution on Homicides in California.” Homicide Studies, 1999)
The murder rate in Canada has dropped by 40% since the death penalty was abolished in that country in 1976. (Amnesty International)
A Texas study determined in 1999 that there was no relation between the number of executions and murder rates in general. (Victoria Brewer, Robert Wrinkle, John Sorenson and James Marquart)
The five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. The five countries with the highest homicide rate that do impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders for every 100,000 people. (United Nations Development Program)

And as for cost, its really cheaper to keep em around. In 1995, New York brought back the death penalty even though the department of corrections estimated that it would cost over $2 million per case and approximately $118 million annually. That same year, state leaders complained that there was a budget shortfall and made dramatic cuts in funding for public higher education and health care. In 1991 New Jersey spent $16 million to impose the death penalty. The next year the state laid off 500 police officers because they could not afford to pay them.

-Whit

 

[llechler]

Cheers to those statistics, Whit....so the dealth penalty should be abolished by those facts ALONE now all we have to do it convince people it is MORALLY wrong as well!

 

[CAV]

According to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, Although the costs of incarceration are expensive (about $20,000 per year per inmate), that amounts to $600,000 to $800,000 depending on whether a person lives 30 or 40 years after their sentencing. The death penalty, on the other hand, costs about $2 million per execution.

First off, the source of your "facts" is one of the more vocal anti-death penalty groups around. I'm sure they are completely unbiased. I'd equate their accuracy and believability with any "gun statistic" published by Sarah Brady.


Here are the real facts For Texas :

1. Texas in 2002 spent more than $22,476.70/yr for each death row inmate.

2. The average time on death row is only 10.43 years

3. The cost of the actual execution is only $86.08

4. The total average cost to execute an inmate in Texas is $234,518.06.

So where is the other $1,765481.94 go?

I can only assume they count the court costs. Unfortunately, legal fees are also incurred for non-death convictions as well. Where did Death Penalty.org account for those costs?? Doesn’t appear that they did.

Well, Texas streamlined that entire process, capping the number of appeals, effectively eliminating this as an argument. The appeals and execution process has now been shortened enough that the punishment is actually becoming effective.

So let's compare the post conviction costs of incarceration v. execution:

Instead of taking decades at $23k/yr, the process is over in under eight years. That drops the costs argument by more than $120,000. Of the 10 remaining inmates scheduled for execution in 2004, 5 have been on death row for less than 8 years. MOF, since passing the legislation that streamlined the capital process, Texas has executed several prisoners with a total stay of less than 265 DAYS on Death Row. $$cha-ching$$ another savings ($211,955.28)

Average execution cost in Texas = < $100 - $200,000k

Average 40 years incarceration cost in Texas = $899,068

HMMMM............

So you're saying that just because the majority of people executed deserve what's coming to them it is of little consequence the innocent people we kill? [/B]

No, I'm saying that morally we can’t overlook or set aside the legally obtained, and justifiable conviction, of the overwhelming majority of capital murders for the occasional "what if" statistic.

 

[bcfos]

Morals don't have a damn thing to do with this. "Eye for and eye" isn't that the saying. So by that rational don't you think a life for a life would be fitting.

Now granted cops can lie, cheat, and steal with some of the best criminals out there. But they are not all that way. DA's want to be in the news headlines as much as they want to win cases to prove to their voters they are doing a good job keeping the community safe. But it all boils down to if the police have done a good job with their investigation. Massive public pressure from the news media can put them in a bind to find someone who has commited a brutal killing such as Lacy Peterson. And sadly folks, if you are married and you spouse is killed you are on the short list of suspects just by process of elimination.

Illinois was a wake up call to show how bad out justice system really is. And I really don't think a murder would be afraid of a life sentence. You have to understand the pecking order of a prision to see a murder has it made. They are on the top of the pecking order list becasue they killed to become incarcerated. Next down you have yor armed robbers and druglords. Further down you have other theives and violent offenders. At the bottom is the rapiest and child molesters who have to be housed in special units because the general population will rape and kill them at the drop of a hat. So even in prison rapists and child molesters are hated, quite fitting IMO.

 

[llechler]

Morals don't have a damn thing to do with this. "Eye for and eye" isn't that the saying. So by that rational don't you think a life for a life would be fitting.

Actually, I do believe morals have a place in this discussion. I think it is morally wrong to kill someone, no matter who that person is or what they have done. One life is not more important than another. And we should not be condoning and encouraging death. The saying is an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, meaning to kill someone because they have killed someone is not the way to end killing. It just perpetuates it. And, I most definitely think that a life for a life is sick and wrong.

 

[CAV]

It has nothing to do with revenge or "life for a life"....

...and everything to do with personal responsibility and the consequence of action. No matter what you may believe, crime and punishment go hand and hand. The flipside of "free will" and personal freedom is that each one of your choices will generate a consequence.

 

[llechler]

Maybe this is one area we can agree on. Just because I don't believe in a life for a life doesn't mean I believe murderers and rapists should be set free with a slap on the wrist. They need punishment in life in prison with no parole. I'm just saying they shouldn't be executed.

 

[Lucille]

You are entitled to your opinion. Of course, the poll shows that people are overwhelmingly in favor of frying these folks. And the prison population is growing out of control, I understand how it works and that my taxes have to keep them there, but I frankly work hard and do not want to support someone for life.
It's not like they get the chair for jaywalking, you know.....

 

[llechler]

You are entitled to your opinion as well. That's what's great about America. You say that:

I frankly work hard and do not want to support someone for life.

So even though it costs LESS to keep someone in prison for life you would rather pay MORE to see them fry? Interesting....

 

[Lucille]

Depending on various factors like health problems it can cost a lot to keep them for life.
I just hope that you never have to reconsider your opinion because of personal experience; I wish the best for you.

 

[llechler]

Yes, but if you look at the previous posts in this thread you have to admit it costs MUCH MUCH more to execute someone than to keep someone in prision for life.

Your response almost makes it sound like you pity me for having his viewpoint or something. No matter what happens to myself or my loved ones I will never change my view on this topic. Every life is precious, no matter who that person is or what that person chooses to do. It is not our say to take their lives away. It is not our place to cause suffering.

 

[Lucille]

Well we have to agree to diagree on this one, obviously neither of us is going to change opinions.

 

[bcfos]

Actually, I do believe morals have a place in this discussion. I think it is morally wrong to kill someone, no matter who that person is or what they have done. One life is not more important than another. And we should not be condoning and encouraging death. The saying is an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, meaning to kill someone because they have killed someone is not the way to end killing. It just perpetuates it. And, I most definitely think that a life for a life is sick and wrong.

I have seen people feel this way then something like this happens in their family and they are the first ones screaming "Fry the Fu(ker". I wouldn't wish anyone to go through the loss of a loved on through murder, but sadly it happens every day. The death penalty is pretty much worthless now days because all the appeals process which takes years and years to do. In the old days you were found guilty at 10 am and hung at noon. Simple and effective, but god knows how many innocent people hung from the gallows in the old days. It is a catch 22 no matter how you look at it now days.

 

[llechler]

So, if it's a catch 22....You wanna just leave it to chance that you kill an innocent person? And if you condone or kill an innocent person, in reality, you are no better than the murderer that you killed.

 

[Lucille]

I was trying to say, in my post, perhaps it would be best to leave this thread fallow. Opinions are strong here, and few are likely to change theirs; Linda, you will not change either myself nor certainly my lil bro Brian who is a walking armory.
Let's agree to disagree.

 

[llechler]

Just because I can't convince you doesn't mean I can't convince others. I would like to explore this topic further if it is okay with you, lucille, since you are the facilitator and all....

 

[Lucille]

I describe myself as a facilitator because I genuinely like most people and try for communication; as long as this is civilized, if it makes you happy, I am happy; but I am just another poster like you; the ultimate fate of this thread is in the hands of the moderators and in my experience they are good at what they do, so go ahead.
I do hope, all debate aside, that your life is happy and that no murder or violent crime ever crosses your path. I have in the past worked in a jail, and I would just as soon everyone got along and never did anything evil; but I don't think the world is made that way.

 

[Ken Harbart]

It's a harsh reality than some lives are indeed worth more than others. This is true both in matters of capital crimes as well as in cases of justifiable homicide (i.e., self-defense).

LWOP is simply just not a suitable punishment for many heinous crimes. A man who kidnaps, rapes, and brutally murders an eight year old girl does not deserve to live out a natural life at taxpayer expense.

A prisoner who is already sentenced to LWOP has nothing to fear. Should he murder a prison guard, so what? What are they going to do... give him another life sentence? That second life sentence was such a joke to him that he attempted to kill a second corrections officer.

How about the recent case here in FL, where a career criminal ordered the savage massacre of an entire household of people simply because they had his x-box? One of the victims was beaten so badly that dental records were of no use in identifying her body. After all six people were beaten to death, their bodies were mutilated after they were dead, and one of the female victims was sexually assaulted with a baseball bat.

Let's branch off with a tangent for just a moment, with a direct question for those who argue the death penalty is morally unacceptable on the grounds that killing is wrong....

If faced with an attacker who was intent on either killing or causing grievous bodily harm to you or an immediate family member, would it be morally wrong to use deadly force in defense of yourself or a loved one?