Death Penalty Ruling

[PastaJoe]

It costs much, much less to execute than pay for their incarceration. As for the "bad guy", will no longer be able to go on the internet, eat 3 hot meals a day, watch cable tv, have a warm bed, read his favorite magazines, write poetry, receive visits and phone calls from friends and family, socialize, or feel the sun on his face. There is a reason that prisoners who are on death row appeal...they would rather stay in jail than be killed.

 

So if they were put in solitary confinement for life without the alleged benefits, would that satisfy you? If not, your argument is moot.

[Endzone Animal]

So if they were put in solitary confinement for life without the alleged benefits, would that satisfy you?

Nope. No reason for me to pay for his meals or his health care.

[blzrul]

I don't have the bandwidth to research all the states but I found this via a really quick search:

 

A study released on March 6, 2008 found that Maryland taxpayers have paid at least $37.2 million for each of the state’s five executions since 1978, when the state reenacted the death penalty. The study, prepared by the Urban Institute, estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. The study examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 and found that seeking the death penalty in those cases cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not been sought. At every phase of a case, according to the study, capital murder cases cost more than non-capital murder cases.

What the study found:

 

The death penalty has cost Maryland at least $186 million. This is state spending over and above what Maryland would have spent had there been no death penalty.

 

The cost of a single death sentence in Maryland is approximately three times higher – or $1.9 million more – than the costs of a comparable non-death penalty case, even taking into account the costs of long-term incarceration.

 

The cost for prosecutors to seek but not get a death sentence is $670,000 more ($1.8 million total) for a single case than for a comparable non-death case – for the same outcome of a life or long-term prison sentence.

When the death penalty is imposed, the court costs alone jump to almost seven times higher ($1.7 million compared to $250,000).

 

(“Death penalty costs Md. more than life term,” by Jennifer McMenamin, The Baltimore Sun, March 6, 2008).

[Endzone Animal]

If you had to take a wild guess, why do you suppose the death penalty is so "expensive"? (hint: it isn't the execution)

[jjamie12]

If you had to take a wild guess, why do you suppose the death penalty is so "expensive"? (hint: it isn't the execution)

Are you now proposing to take away the apellate process?

[K-9]

Are you now proposing to take away the apellate process?

 

I get the same impression. It's the typical revenge vs. justice argument.

[Endzone Animal]

Are you now proposing to take away the apellate process?

Are you suggesting that the current process is satisfactory?

[John Adams]

Are you suggesting that the current process is satisfactory?

 

It's better that the government's power to kill not be checked.

[Endzone Animal]

It's better that the government's power to kill not be checked.

I see...so having about 15-20 years on death row, piling up millions of tax payer dollars in the process, sounds like a good, swift form of justice in your book.

[jjamie12]

Are you suggesting that the current process is satisfactory?

No, I'm suggesting its what we have. Will you answer my question now?

[jjamie12]

I see...so having about 15-20 years on death row, piling up millions of tax payer dollars in the process, sounds like a good, swift form of justice in your book.

When the justice is death, you better damn well have access to as many appeals as possible. Do you not agree with that?

[John Adams]

I see...so having about 15-20 years on death row, piling up millions of tax payer dollars in the process, sounds like a good, swift form of justice in your book.

 

You do know it costs more to execute someone that keep them in prison for 40 years right?

 

And I'd rather the government's power to execute its own citizens be checked at every turn.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Does the death penalty serve as a deterrent?

 

Between two rational parties, the answer is YES. That isn't the case, one of the parties innvolved is almost always irrational.

[ExiledInIllinois]

What I have always found interesting about these cases, is how intracteable the DAs can be even in the face of the new, irrefutable evidence that exonerates the wrongly accused.

 

There is just something about the phenomenon of the human mind that literally prevents us from accepting any other truth once we have accepted another.

 

So true. Just check out all the conservative wacko's on this board.

 

 

You remember this place in late 2002-early 2003 when the Patriotically Correct where banging the drums of war... The still haven't accepted the truth... Even in outright vain. Heck, they are still banging it (pun intended)!

[John Adams]

Between two rational parties, the answer is YES. That isn't the case, one of the parties innvolved is almost always irrational.

 

In a moment like Michael Douglas has in Falling Down, I could kill someone. And I gaurantee you, the death penalty would serve as no deterrent. Similarly, I could be out to dinner and a guy might say the wrong thing to my daughter and I could pound him to a pulp. Again, death penalty not on my mind.

 

In other non-crime-of-passion examples, if I decided to kill someone--and planned it out in a premeditated way--capital punishment would not be on my mind. Getting caught would be--but not capital punishment. Like many killers, I'd rather be dead than in prison for 40 years.

 

I don't see it as any deterrent. It doesn't save money. It's purpose is punishment and vengeance, and that's actually not a bad purpose, but let's not pretend otherwise.

[ExiledInIllinois]

In a moment like Michael Douglas has in Falling Down, I could kill someone. And I gaurantee you, the death penalty would serve as no deterrent. Similarly, I could be out to dinner and a guy might say the wrong thing to my daughter and I could pound him to a pulp. Again, death penalty not on my mind.

 

In other non-crime-of-passion examples, if I decided to kill someone--and planned it out in a premeditated way--capital punishment would not be on my mind. Getting caught would be--but not capital punishment. Like many killers, I'd rather be dead than in prison for 40 years.

 

I don't see it as any deterrent. It doesn't save money. It's purpose is punishment and vengeance, and that's actually not a bad purpose, but let's not pretend otherwise.

 

I agree. At those moments of "passion", I take one becomes irrational.

 

Moneywise, it may save some coin vs. incarcerating the offender for life... No? Then again there is the cost for legal defense through the years. The execution would have to be done rather rapidily, which then would possibily cause more errors.

[KD in CA]

In a moment like Michael Douglas has in Falling Down, I could kill someone. And I gaurantee you, the death penalty would serve as no deterrent. Similarly, I could be out to dinner and a guy might say the wrong thing to my daughter and I could pound him to a pulp. Again, death penalty not on my mind.

 

In other non-crime-of-passion examples, if I decided to kill someone--and planned it out in a premeditated way--capital punishment would not be on my mind. Getting caught would be--but not capital punishment. Like many killers, I'd rather be dead than in prison for 40 years.

 

I don't see it as any deterrent. It doesn't save money. It's purpose is punishment and vengeance, and that's actually not a bad purpose, but let's not pretend otherwise.

 

I only agree with your premise that you wouldn't think about it given the current use of the death penalty -- which is basically nil. I think the reason people don't think about the death penalty is because there's pretty much a zero percentage change that you'll be executed if you murder someone. We have a death penalty in name only. How many people do we actually execute each year, 50? How about if we executed 5,000 per year? Or 10,000? If it was actually forefront in people's minds, I think it would be a significant deterrent.

 

However, I do agree that punishment and vengeance is a prime motive and should be. People these days are just too pussified to admit that they actually want revenge.

[jjamie12]

I only agree with your premise that you wouldn't think about it given the current use of the death penalty -- which is basically nil. I think the reason people don't think about the death penalty is because there's pretty much a zero percentage change that you'll be executed if you murder someone. We have a death penalty in name only. How many people do we actually execute each year, 50? How about if we executed 5,000 per year? Or 10,000? If it was actually forefront in people's minds, I think it would be a significant deterrent.

Inherent in your comments is the idea that people committing murder, or child rape or whatever other heinous crime are acting rationally with regard to the death penalty. It seems very obvious to me that people doing those things are clearly not rational... Outside of 'crimes of passion' you have drug dealers and the like out on the streets gunning down other drug dealers (and sometimes innocent civillians). These folks are living under the threat of death every single time they walk out of their homes... you really think that somehow a 'death penalty' is a deterrent to them?

However, I do agree that punishment and vengeance is a prime motive and should be. People these days are just too pussified to admit that they actually want revenge.

While people might be too 'pussified' to admit that they actually want revenge, can't we all agree that 'revenge' shouldn't be the motivating factor in determining what penalties we mete out in our justice system?

[John Adams]

Moneywise, it may save some coin vs. incarcerating the offender for life... No? Then again there is the cost for legal defense through the years. The execution would have to be done rather rapidily, which then would possibily cause more errors.

 

It costs more to execute than incarcerate. I found some Congressional testimony on this--seems pretty clear actually. Something like at least a million dollars more to execute than incarcerate for 40 years. Most of that legal fees of course.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

So if they were put in solitary confinement for life without the alleged benefits, would that satisfy you? If not, your argument is moot.

 

Only if they were brutally tortured every day for the rest of their lives. Then and only then would justice truly be served. An eye for an eye. The victim suffers, so should the perpetrator.