Death Penalty

Remove all ads!

Laches, why do you think it costs more money to execute a prisoner than to jail him? The only way I could see this is if you factored in the cost of an appeal and the defendant's lawyer was appointed by the government (I believe cases are automatically appealed when the death penalty is involved).

I saw a study that gave the cost to keep a person incarcerated, fed, clothed, and in health, cost $40,000 to $50,000 a year. I believe I could find a way to execute someone for far less than $50,000, even including cleanup!

 

I've seen studies that have concluded this, in some of my old criminal law books. They're in storage in another state so I can't dig them out and tell you who did the studies. I suspect there are more floating about the web.

Yes, the increased cost is related to the increased legal costs associated with executing a man.

Here is what a quick search produced:

Note, the above was altered by me because there was a table which did not transfer well when cut and pasted, therefore there is a small section that isn't a direct quote. Here is the link (didn't do any research into the site, just found it real quick like): http://www.worldpolicy.org/americas/dp/dp-cost.html

This is all interesting but in my opinion largely irrelevant. I personally don't think cost should be the issue. There is an abundance of evidence that if you are a male you are far more likely to be executed than if you are a female. If you are black or hispanic you are far more likely to be executed than if you are white. That added to the now well known cases where some inmates have been sentenced to death for crimes they have not committed makes me think that our system is not reliable enough to continue the use of the death penalty.

Note that this isn't saying that the death penalty is wrong or immoral. I'm not saying it is right either. I don't think you need to go that far because even assuming that the death penalty an appropriate punishment in some cases I think there is enough evidence to believe we aren't competent enough yet to use it. Get rid of racism and I'll reevaluate.

 

@Deviant Mage

"The slightest suggestion that the Holocaust was, in any way, shape, or form a good thing sickens me. As for the idea that as a nation, the US should have to go through a similar experience so we stop playing 'Mickey Mouse games' is one of the most grotesque and simply awful things I've ever had the misfortune of running across. The idea that someone could actually think that is a sincerely depressing one."

My point, exactly. I thank you kindly for that, good sir.

 

@Nutrimat
"I saw a study that gave the cost to keep a person incarcerated, fed, clothed, and in health, cost $40,000 to $50,000 a year. I believe I could find a way to execute someone for far less than $50,000, even including cleanup!"

That would hardly sway me towards capital punishment. If that figure is even accurate (which I highly doubt it is), all it would suggest is that the Department of Corrections is in a state of total ineptitude to rival that of the INS. Then again, considering the current levels of recidivism my argument might be completely meaningless.

@Deviant Mage
I believe ejsmith's point was that the lack of ever having our asses handed to us in any conflict has made us arrogant to such a point that a dose of humility is in order. Which I must agree with somewhat. However I'm certain there has to be a way other than the apocalypse to accomplish that.

"The slightest suggestion that the Holocaust was, in any way, shape, or form a good thing sickens me."
It was in one regard. The generally anti-semetic world (US included, as we were particularly bad) did an almost complete about face in that respect. Sort of a horrific wake up call; and a rather effective one at that. Too damn bad it took 6 million of them for us and the rest of the world to get the idea.

[ November 09, 2002, 03:19: Message edited by: Alex ]

 

I agree with Firestorm. I've never liked violence, let alone killing someone. It's revenge, plain and simple. When people die naturally, they don't kill anybody. Why the hell should it be different for murder? I look at it this way. Death = nothing. They might not even have time to feel guilty. life = guilt. They'll have to live with the fact that they screwed up about as far as it's possible too for the rest of their life. I live in Canada, and we (more or less) believe in peace. I, personally, think the rest of the world is insane. Why do people even continue to make handguns? The only purpose for handguns is to shoot people. Rifles can be used in hunting, but honestly, when was the last time you saw a guy shoot a deer with a pistol?

 

The death penalty is obviously the easy route out. Here in New Zealand we don't have it, hell we don't even have a decent judicial system. I mean, if someone gets life for murdering someone then it should be life. Not 6 or 9 years, then back on the streets to do it all again!
I would rather someone be given the death penalty (as long as they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) than give them the opportunity to kill, maim or rape someone as soon as they get out.

 

You know, all this got me thinking.

We could do like Mexico does. On their largest prison, they have a wall that looks exactly like the Berlin wall. It's like 20 feet high, razor wire, steel stakes; the whole works.

And it's completely open population. There's no doors, there's just niches where everyone can sleep. And there's usually about 1000 people in there at any one time. There's about 50 guards around the perimeter at any one time, all armed with automatic rifles. About every 6 months there's a major riot, and about 100 prisoners die, before the guards start launching tear gas and mace cannisters into the area.

Technically speaking, there's no death penalty. You're just in there for life...

 

Excellent idea, ejsmith - incarceration in the US is just too soft, unless you are in a military prison. Prison should not be a time of vacation from the hardships of life - it should be a time of hardship.

 

You are 100% right. Prison should be the worst place imaginably on earth, not a holiday camp. Who knows, if people were crammed into cells and shared a bit of concrete for a bed like you suggested then prison may be a bit off putting for those blasted criminals.
Either way, we have to keep them off the streets, and not let them back into society.
They should also cut visitation rights down - isn't that how they still manage to conduct business with the outside world?
Have them stand behind a glass wall and use sign language instead of verbally communicating.

Worst place on earth, a bit like hell only hotter.

 

I've only been to a prison a couple of times in my life. You all must have been to some radically different prisons than the one I've been to because the last word I would use to describe it is soft. I wonder if this isn't an idea that has taken off in popular culture due to the "tough on crime" rhetoric? I'd like to ask why people think prisons are too soft and if they do I would like to know your personal experiences with easy prisons or some sort of justification for thinking so. It may well be that there are some soft prisons out there, I'm genuinely curious. Even if there are though I am very doubtful that they represent anything other than the smallest minority.

Here is a survival guide written by an ex-con apparently. It shows a bit what prison is like, caution though, it is blunt and written by a guy who is anything but nice:

http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm ?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2FCapitolHill%2FCongress%2F6425%2Fsurvival.html

[ November 10, 2002, 00:22: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

To wrongs doesnt make a right.

 

I dunno, instead of killing them, you could just...knock them out?

Then, when they wake up, knock them out again. Keep going for a whole year, then let them go.

 

$40-50k a year on clothing! Now we know why those figures for life imprisonment are so blasted high! I can go through a full year spending only a few hundred dollars on clothing. All of my clothes are in near-perfect condition, never patched or such, and are made of high end material.

Those figures are of course figured out on 40 years in prison, and most people that get life imprisonment will be in jail for more than forty years. Most people convicted of capital crimes are in their 20s. That means that they will be in prison for 60-70 years. That will change the numbers the other way.

I've already made my arguments on the other thread, and I'm still in favor of instituting Hammurabi's Code of Laws, but would you rather see people like the ones who killed 15(?) people in Virginia and Maryland simply get into jail and get off on parole in a few years?

Where the heck are you guys getting all this "innocent people being killed" information? The way forensic science and such are today, the odds that an innocent person will be convicted are practically nonexistant. Sure, 20 years it was different, and then the death penalty may not have been feasible. It is now.

We're still pretty strict on who we give it to. There are (free) countries in the world that will kill you for shoplifting a needle from a store or for driving drunk. While I don't propose doing that, I still think that the concept of abolishing the death penalty is not viable. The prisons are already overcrowded as is. Imagine how much more crowded they'd get if we abolished capital punishment.

[ November 11, 2002, 03:01: Message edited by: Rastor ]

 

"Crowded prisons" seems to be a major factor driving arguments for killing criminals. But you know, there are other ways to streamline the number of people in the prisons without making anyone kill anyone else. My first question would be, well, why are the prisons so crowded in the first place? "Not enough capital punishment" seems an unlikely answer. Maybe "too many things are criminalised" would be a better one. Prison should be an oubliette for the violent so that they don't harm the innocent. But you can go to prison without being violent. You can go to prison for: growing certain plants in your herb garden or in a flowerpot in your own home, for giving a blow job in exchange for money, for not paying parking tickets, for offering someone a medicine a doctor didn't give them written permission to take, for keeping a gun in the privacy of your own home and not registering it with the authorities, for painting a customer's toenails without cosmetician certification, etc etc etc. Instead of being outraged at all the prisoners eating and wearing clothes at your expense, I think it's time to get outraged at governments that make "crimes" out of things that are none of their goddamn business.

The violent should be locked up and the key thrown away- no question. I'd include in this category people who had committed any senseless acts of violence (i.e. various forms of self-defence would be exempt), as well as stalkers that have shown an intent to kill. Although I do believe some people forfeit their right to life by behaving monstrously, I am opposed to capital punishment for the same reason Jack Funk is opposed to corporal punishment- because I think it is a terrible thing for anyone to have to carry out. I don't care what the conditions in prison are like- good or bad- so long as it doesn't cost me too much and the truly violent won't ever get out to prey on the innocent again.

What about all those stupid "crimes" like growing a certain type of poppy or herb in your own back yard? Well, why should the taxpayers waste money hunting these people down, putting them through the court system, and then supporting them at great expense in prison? What a phenomenal waste of money, energy, lives! Dedicate the criminal justice system, including prisons, for murderers, thieves, and committers of aggravated assault.

I'd say that thieves don't belong in prisons either. If they're not violent, there are other ways to punish them that don't cost as much. For example: eliminate access to unemployment insurance, welfare, old-age pensions, and government-paid health care. You don't want to be a responsible member of society, you don't deserve the benefits. Increase tax rates in proportion to the cost of the thefts (they can't get welfare so they'll have to work if they want to eat) and donate the difference to charities. I'd even say- eliminate access to the services of the police and fire department for repeat offenders. Your house is burning down? So sad. We'd help, but you're a jerk. Get out of our way while we protect your neighbours' houses. I think this type of punishment- withdrawing the privileges of citizenship from those who don't earn them- would be a far better deterrent than putting them in prison and paying for their food, clothes, and university degree. It would definitely be cheaper.

 

I really like your take on thiefs Sprite, you really make it easy for them not to steal. First they have a record, really really hard to get a job, absolutely not right away. Second they dont get any unemployment, wellfare plus they have to pay higher taxes? What do you think a thief would do in that situation if he wanted to eat? I can tell it to you, steal.

 

Rastor,

I think that you were indicating that the numbers would change so that life in prison is more expensive than the death penalty if the prisoner is around for more than 40 years. I don't believe this to be the case. Only one figure I listed above was for someone in prison for 40 years and the death penalty was 3 times more expensive than it. Even if a prisoner survived another 20 years there, the death penalty would still be 2 1/2 times less expensive. Also, I'm not really sure that the average life in prison is more than 40 years. Something tells me life expectancy in the prison population is less than in the rest of society and if your put in life in prison in the mid 20's to mid 30's 40 years puts you at 65-75 years of age.

As far as innocent men on death row, in Arpil of 2002 Ray Krone was exonerated and released from death row to become the 100th innocent person exonerated while on death row. He was convicted a decade ago. Also, the problem is that forensic evidence is not always conclusive. Ray Krone was convicted on the belief that a bite mark matched with him. There isn't always DNA evidence available but that doesn't stop the application of the death penalty. Take the case of Anthony Graves who was executed on the basis of the testimony of Robert Carter. Carter testified that it was Graves who set fire to a house killing one woman and four children. Initially Carter had pointed the finger at Graves knowing that he'd lost out on a promotion recently and hoping the police would blame him instead of Carter for the crime (Carter was found guilty as well.) In exchange for his testimony, the prosecution agreed not to charge Carter's wife with the crime. After trial, Carter recanted 7 times saying he'd lied about Graves. Graves was executed. There was no forensic evidence linking Graves to the murders. Carter was executed as well, here are his final written words:

I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest the odds of an innocent man being convicted and sentenced to death is too high to risk the death penalty in my opinion.

Again though, that doesn't even begin to touch on the apparent racism in the process. Take the state of Maryland where 70% of death row was black while on 28% of the population was. Worse though is that 80% of the states murder victims were black and yet of the 13 men on death row as of Nov 11, 2002 12 of them had been convicted of killing white people. Texas is where the death penalty is most common. As of 1998, despite the fact that Texas had executed more men than anyone else, they had never executed anyone for killing a black person (can't verify if this has changed.)

I think racism and the odds of an innocent being convicted are each sufficient on their own to preclude the death penalty. Cost isn't that important to me but it is more expensive to execute than it is to keep in prison for life. Together, they become that much stronger.

 

I read a short story once that was basically about a former Nazi; just a soldier, really, someone who had dug trenches for bodies and things like that-who was condemned to be killed...and then brought back to life...and then killed...and on and on like that until he had died the same number of times as there were people who were killed by the Nazis'. He wasn't a leader, or anything like that, but he had been the last remaining former Nazi, and he was being punished for even participating in those atrocities. The story was told in his point of view, as he was coming back to life, and then killed again. It was definitly an *interesting* idea.

 

A typical First Degree Felony Murder statute and Capital Murder statute are very similar. Why charge one rather than the other? You are seeking the death penalty. Juries pass death sentences in about 80% of all capital cases. There are extra costs associated with attempting to achieve the death penalty even when you fail.

I do not feel like the numbers people stated above about the cost to keep someone in prison are anywhere near correct. Even in an expensive prison system, you are looking at about $21,000 a year a few years ago:
http://www.cdc.state.ca.us/inmtcst.htm

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs2.html

[ November 11, 2002, 22:08: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

The cost-argument as a measure to justify death penalty is just plain sick and pervert. Criminal or not - how much is the value of a human life? To repeat myself: