Death Penalty

[daytripping]

If Robert Black had raped and murdered your 5 year old daughter would you be shouting at the hangman telling him he's as bad as Black?

 

 

MIster hangman!!!! what aboot his human rights!!!

[spamspamspam]

Nat Fraser would like to not have the death penalty since he's been stitched up like a kipper repeatedly over the mysterious disappearance of his wife.

 

Poor c**t would have been hung years ago if the rozzers had their way.

 

He's trying to get off on technicalities and not because of some new evidence that proves he didnt do it. If he does get off the police will be waiting for him at the prison gates to rearrest and recharge.

 

Anyway, if the death sentence was brought back I'm sure he wouldnt be swinging already. The amount of appeals etc would mean it would take 8-10 years beofre someone was actually hung.

 

Its c**ts like Brady and that boy that took the 2 girls that I'd have swinging within weeks of being convicted. Crimes where the dna evidence and other pacts presented are indisputable.

[The Boofon]

Boofon,

 

You must remember that the crown intend to bring Fraser to trial again, he should be in remand till such time, most suspected murderers get treated like that, he is no exception.

 

Most suspected murderers remanded in custody awaiting trial have been charged and not had their conviction quashed,

 

It's nonsensical. He's a free man until such time as they raise another prosecution against him and that has not happened yet to my knowledge. He poses no risks to society out of prison so why is he still inside?

 

 

 

The car they used to carry and dispose of the body, a fiesta I believe. The evidence is there, he didn't get convicted on a hunch and the jury will know a lot more than you or me.

 

 

Now I know you're on the wind up. The car they used? Who is they? Nat Fraser and his mate Hector Dick?

 

If Hector Dick had admitted in court that he and Nat Fraser killed her and bought a car to dispose of her body and then destroyed that car then both Hector and Nat would have been found guilty of murder.

 

He said that Nat had bought a car. There is no mention of it being used to dispose of the body in any of the court transcripts.

 

Purely speculation on your part.

 

Timeline

 

"Hector Dick admits burning and crushing a car because of fears that it might be linked to the disappearance of Mrs Fraser."

[Big Man]

He's trying to get off on technicalities and not because of some new evidence that proves he didnt do it. If he does get off the police will be waiting for him at the prison gates to rearrest and recharge.

 

Anyway, if the death sentence was brought back I'm sure he wouldnt be swinging already. The amount of appeals etc would mean it would take 8-10 years beofre someone was actually hung.

 

Its c**ts like Brady and that boy that took the 2 girls that I'd have swinging within weeks of being convicted. Crimes where the dna evidence and other pacts presented are indisputable.

 

Please watch this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17KKtHpRvxI&feature=related

 

The crown withheld evidence at the initial trial, as a result of the incompetence of the police. The man did not have a fair trial - thats not a technicality, that's a fundamental human right. Thank f**k we have a supreme court (for now).

[Monkey]

Death penalty?

 

No thanks, the chances of an innocent person being killed are "by mistake" are way to high.

 

Now life meaning life for certain criminals should be more common as when a mistake is made a person can always be released from prison whereas an overturned conviction means little to a dead man.

[spamspamspam]

Please watch this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17KKtHpRvxI&feature=related

 

The crown withheld evidence at the initial trial, as a result of the incompetence of the police. The man did not have a fair trial - thats not a technicality, that's a fundamental human right. Thank f**k we have a supreme court (for now).

 

The rings are/were only one part of the case against him and were not the pivotal evidence that convicted him. That would more likely be his best mate, the guy he tried to get to kill her first before hiring a hit man, standing up in court and stating as much. Didnt help his case that he had also threatened to kill her at least once before.

[The Boofon]

The rings are/were only one part of the case against him and were not the pivotal evidence that convicted him. That would more likely be his best mate, the guy he tried to get to kill her first before hiring a hit man, standing up in court and stating as much. Didnt help his case that he had also threatened to kill her at least once before.

 

Spam you're a sensible man but that is nonsense.

 

Hector Dick didn't at any point say that Nat Fraser asked him to kill his wife in court.

 

The rings appearing in the bathroom was the pivotal evidence that convicted him that's why when it was discovered that the rings were there prior to the search the conviction was quashed.

 

If he had been found guilty by Hector Dick's evidence then he'd still be a convicted murderer.

 

Hector may have helped the prosecutions case but it was far from the pivotal evidence you claim.

[Big Man]

The rings are/were only one part of the case against him and were not the pivotal evidence that convicted him. That would more likely be his best mate, the guy he tried to get to kill her first before hiring a hit man, standing up in court and stating as much. Didnt help his case that he had also threatened to kill her at least once before.

 

Please read these documents, and then try telling me that hector dick's testimony was the pivotal evidence that convited him...

 

1) http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC26.html

 

2) http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0192_Judgment.pdf

 

[Ke1t]

No.

 

Pretty retarded idea.

[Bluto10]

Come on Kelt, crack the fingers and tell us why!!

 

I want bad people swinging from the castlegate on a Saturday afternoon.

 

 

could use a dubai crane if you were ever sent to the gallows.

[StandFree1982]

Three Strikes and you are out.

 

 

1st time - May have made a mistake, people can change...rehabilitation.

2nd time - Severe punishment followed by a "this is what is going to happen to you, if this happens again"

3rd time - f**k em, clearly someone from the weak gene pool and isn't likely to contribute anything to society anyways.

 

[StandFree1982]

And how do you know so much about how we moderate this forum?

I reached Strike 2 and was hastily told what would happen if the 3rd came!

[Ke1t]

Come on Kelt, crack the fingers and tell us why!!

 

I want bad people swinging from the castlegate on a Saturday afternoon.

 

Fair enough... I personally reckon that anyone who wants to murder another human being is almost certainly mentally incompetent.

[Bluto10]

Fair enough... I personally reckon that anyone who wants to murder another human being is almost certainly mentally incompetent.

 

totally.

 

but its easy to play the humanitarian card, until it close to you.

 

theres more to it than just the d.p. you need education and proper working justice system.

 

i do struggle to see any reason tho for keeping the likes of the wests alive at the tax payers expense.

the world truely is a better place with the likes of them.

 

 

as an aside whats the crime rate like in middle east countries.

diff society to the west and some supposed extreme punishments.

does it work?

[Bluto10]

Don't make me have to insult you and your family again...........i thought we were making progress, first stage before a homo erotic meeting?

 

i'm glad you think the same.

 

i'm free later on tonight?

 

dutch mill. i'll be at the bar carrying a bunch of flowwers.

[Ke1t]

totally.

 

but its easy to play the humanitarian card, until it close to you.

 

This is why I used the term 'mentally incompetent' rather than 'mentally ill'.

 

If someone suffers personally, or if someone close to that person suffers, at the hands of a criminal then that person is, I think, genetically disposed to seek vengeance, which would likely include acts of extreme violence.

 

If someone, for example, were to deliberately harm my son, I would take my shiny new shotgun and put a hole in their head the size of a dinner plate. This isn't how I normally act, but under those conditions I would not be in control of my faculties. I'd be mentally incompetent. I'd expect any parent to act in the same way... the McCann's for example. If they ever catch the individuals responsible for their daughter's death I'm sure they'd have murder on their mind. Or suicide... whatever.

 

But for someone to actually want another human being dead, for that to be a person's default position... that tells me that the person in question goes around in a state of permanent mental incompetence. The death penalty is a 'final solution', there being no take-backs. you kill a person and find out later that they're not guilty and, well, you've murdered an innocent person. And if anyone thinks that's just fine and dandy, that there's going to be accidents but well, whatever, then that person, to my mind, is nothing short of a sociopath. And sociopaths shouldn't be dictating the law.

 

 

theres more to it than just the d.p. you need education and proper working justice system.

 

i do struggle to see any reason tho for keeping the likes of the wests alive at the tax payers expense.

the world truely is a better place with the likes of them.

 

I've said this before... rather than execute people like Frederick and Rosemary, stick them on an Island. They're removed from society, and it costs nothing to keep them. And if it turns out their neighbour was doing the killing you go get them off the island and say, "sh*t... sorry... well, at least you're not dead. I guess you'll rightly be suing the f**k out of us now."

 

It's not a perfect system, but it's a sight better than institutionalised murder.

 

 

as an aside whats the crime rate like in middle east countries.

diff society to the west and some supposed extreme punishments.

does it work?

 

I have absolutely no idea... but I do know that the death penalty doesn't work in preventing serious crime. California has the death penalty, and two of the top ten most violent cities in America are in California. Granted the two most violent cities are in Michigan where there is no death penalty, but the shift from affluence to abject poverty in Michigan would have a lot to do with the rise in crime.

 

If the death penalty were an effective deterrent then you wouldn't expect to see states with the death penalty on that list. It would be all states without the death penalty.

 

It's ineffective, it's irreversible and it's a pretty retarded idea.

[muttondressedaslamb]

Your bog standard crime rates (ie not fraud, complex tax cases etc) are a lot lower in the Middle East but would it be worth the trade off? As a woman and a liberal I'd say no.

[Terrorfex]

In my head anyway, Prison exists for rehabilitation. While a person's inside, they're neither working nor paying into the State and so they're a net drain on the entire population. Therefore the concept of prison is one of taking the criminal and making whatever changes are necessary (education, disciplining) to fulfil two important end results:

 

Ensure they're not a danger to society

 

Ensure they're capable of contributing to the State.

 

In the cases of crimes ranging from petty theft up to assault and all the financial crimes therein, that concept works. However, when you step up to the most heinous of crimes e.g. Rape, Murder, etc. Then the nature of the game changes. It's arguable whether anyone who commits this kind of crime might ever be in a position to resist doing so again, and in that case, it's questionable as to whether they can really ever be rehabilitated.

 

In this case, I'd be in favour of re-introducing the Death Penalty, eligibility for it being determined by medical and psychological evaluation.

 

The types of people who most obviously would instantly qualify for this kind of sentence are the likes of Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, etc. These men will never be rehabilitated; their existence remains entirely at enormous cost to the State. The issue isn't necessarily entirely one of finance, but resources should be maximised and spending sums like that on the idea that there will never come a point when the inmate can somehow contribute something is flawed.

 

As for the concept of Justice, well it's never left in the hands of the people or we'd be back to burnings and stonings. Only the State can control Law & Order, and since the most important function of government after defending the realm is control of budget, Justice can ultimately be rendered down to a numbers game; If Convinct XYZ can never make a meaningful contribution, having first wronged another party, and so s/he will be spending the rest of her/his entire existence at the cost of the State, that's a gross misuse of limited resources.

[Big Man]

In my head anyway, Prison exists for rehabilitation. While a person's inside, they're neither working nor paying into the State and so they're a net drain on the entire population. Therefore the concept of prison is one of taking the criminal and making whatever changes are necessary (education, disciplining) to fulfil two important end results:

 

Ensure they're not a danger to society

 

Ensure they're capable of contributing to the State.

 

In the cases of crimes ranging from petty theft up to assault and all the financial crimes therein, that concept works. However, when you step up to the most heinous of crimes e.g. Rape, Murder, etc. Then the nature of the game changes. It's arguable whether anyone who commits this kind of crime might ever be in a position to resist doing so again, and in that case, it's questionable as to whether they can really ever be rehabilitated.

 

In this case, I'd be in favour of re-introducing the Death Penalty, eligibility for it being determined by medical and psychological evaluation.

 

The types of people who most obviously would instantly qualify for this kind of sentence are the likes of Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, etc. These men will never be rehabilitated; their existence remains entirely at enormous cost to the State. The issue isn't necessarily entirely one of finance, but resources should be maximised and spending sums like that on the idea that there will never come a point when the inmate can somehow contribute something is flawed.

 

As for the concept of Justice, well it's never left in the hands of the people or we'd be back to burnings and stonings. Only the State can control Law & Order, and since the most important function of government after defending the realm is control of budget, Justice can ultimately be rendered down to a numbers game; If Convinct XYZ can never make a meaningful contribution, having first wronged another party, and so s/he will be spending the rest of her/his entire existence at the cost of the State, that's a gross misuse of limited resources.

 

Yes sir i agree! Your talking 100% sense.

 

[barassie_afc]

Yes sir i agree! Your talking 100% sense.

 

 

Agree but how do you implement/control that

[daytripping]

Say an innocent person is found guilty and they go through years of appeals and he's still guilty, If I were that innocent person i'd rather be dead, hence hanging is a fair solution for all.

[Ke1t]

Say an innocent person is found guilty and they go through years of appeals and he's still guilty, If I were that innocent person i'd rather be dead, hence hanging is a fair solution for all.

 

If you'd rather be dead then just kill yourself... what are they going to do, stick a few years onto your sentence if they find you dead in your cell?

 

No need to institutionalise murder.

[Terrorfex]

If you'd rather be dead then just kill yourself... what are they going to do, stick a few years onto your sentence if they find you dead in your cell?

 

No need to institutionalise murder.

 

Interestingly, in the context of an ( admittedly western concept) impartial judicial system, why is the Death Penalty "Institutionalised Murder", whereas Imprisonment (specifically life imprisonment) isn't "(Permanent) Institutionalised Kidnapping".

 

And, in general, murder (if we're using the term like that) is already institutionalised entirely; it's the basic legal protection that allows the Armed Forces to discharge their duties without being guilty of murder every time the trigger's pulled. If we're adding the caveat that there's a whole system of checks and scrutiny to punish those who wrongly pull the trigger, then the same attention is duly given to most variations of and ideas to pursue a Death Penalty.

 

The idea that "An innocent man whose put to death can't be brought back," is irrefutable. But innocents also die instead of those that should in times of military operation(s), and yet no-one advocates (seriously) disbanding the military for fear of killing the wrong person.

 

The system will always be imperfect because it's created by imperfection (Human Beings) but if we used that as a basis for all our decisions (Don't do it because it might go wrong) we'd never have gotten as far as mastering fire.

[Ke1t]

Interestingly, in the context of an ( admittedly western concept) impartial judicial system, why is the Death Penalty "Institutionalised Murder", whereas Imprisonment (specifically life imprisonment) isn't "(Permanent) Institutionalised Kidnapping".

 

And, in general, murder (if we're using the term like that) is already institutionalised entirely; it's the basic legal protection that allows the Armed Forces to discharge their duties without being guilty of murder every time the trigger's pulled. If we're adding the caveat that there's a whole system of checks and scrutiny to punish those who wrongly pull the trigger, then the same attention is duly given to most variations of and ideas to pursue a Death Penalty.

 

The idea that "An innocent man whose put to death can't be brought back," is irrefutable. But innocents also die instead of those that should in times of military operation(s), and yet no-one advocates (seriously) disbanding the military for fear of killing the wrong person.

 

The system will always be imperfect because it's created by imperfection (Human Beings) but if we used that as a basis for all our decisions (Don't do it because it might go wrong) we'd never have gotten as far as mastering fire.

 

The deliberate targeting of civilians is, in fact, a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention

 

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

 

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

 

I think we can draw a clear distinction between a civilian and a combatant, at least in the case of a civilian trial vs an armed combatant. In the case of the former I would consider execution to be state sponsored murder, whereas two combatants trying to kill each other would occupy an entirely separate set of principles.

 

You make a good point about kidnapping v incarceration, however I'm involving myself in an exercise in semantics regarding execution vs murder. In that case you could quite logically refer to incarceration as kidnapping, and were you to be arguing against incarceration I certainly couldn't argue the toss with you.

 

As far as civilians being executed vs combatants killing each other, I'd very much take issue that those are comparable acts.

[Terrorfex]

The deliberate targeting of civilians is, in fact, a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention

 

 

 

I think we can draw a clear distinction between a civilian and a combatant, at least in the case of a civilian trial vs an armed combatant. In the case of the latter I would consider execution to be state sponsored murder, whereas two combatants trying to kill each other would occupy an entirely separate set of principle.

 

You make a good point about kidnapping v incarceration, however I'm involving myself in an exercise in semantics regarding execution vs murder. In that case you could quite logically refer to incarceration as kidnapping, and were you to be arguing against incarceration I certainly couldn't argue the toss with you.

 

As far as civilians being executed vs combatants killing each other, I'd very much take issue that those are comparable acts.

 

I definitely wouldn't argue on that - you're quite right on the distinction. I was more focusing on the idea, perpetuated by some (but not necessarily you) that the Death Penalty should be out of bounds because it can't be 100% correct, by extending that argument to suggest anything that can't be 100% should be discarded from use (Which is a logical absurdity, but then it's more a thinking exercise / debate than a rational argument to put forward).

[Ke1t]

I definitely wouldn't argue on that - you're quite right on the distinction. I was more focusing on the idea, perpetuated by some (but not necessarily you) that the Death Penalty should be out of bounds because it can't be 100% correct, by extending that argument to suggest anything that can't be 100% should be discarded from use (Which is a logical absurdity, but then it's more a thinking exercise / debate than a rational argument to put forward).

 

Well, no, you can't be 100% on anything... you can't even be 100% the Sun will rise the next morning because it could potentially blow up while you're in bed and incinerate the planet before you've got up to have your morning Wheaties.

 

One thing you can be pretty sure about, conversely, is that if you don't execute your prisoners then you're almost certainly... pretty close to 100% in fact.. not going to execute an innocent person.

 

That's not my sole reason for being almost 100% against the death penalty, though.... some of the other issues I have are;

 

* I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the great blue yonder, or that we'll drift up to Heaven to be with Jesus. We die, we're gone, that's it. For that reason my personal ethics tell me that taking a life is the biggest 'sin' (if you like) that anyone can commit.

 

* Potential for abuse. I've seen it said that rapists should be executed. I just wonder how many women have had 'buyer's remorse' and retrospectively (and successfully) claimed rape, resulting in conviction.

 

* Political Abuse. Frame a political opponent for rape, murder, paedophilia, whatever, he's executed and out of the way forever. Tempting stuff.

 

* Threshold. At what point do you set the cut-off point for execution? It's not the same as jailing someone for mugging or petty violence. Let's say some young guy gets arrested for fighting repeatedly, as a lot of young guys will. do you really implement an X strikes and you're out policy?

 

* Cost. The cost of repeated appeals from Death Row inmates is far in excess of the cost of incarceration. The argument against that is that you set the number of potential appeals and allow no more. so if a convict has had his allocation of appeals and compelling evidence is later uncovered that would get him acquitted, is he just sh*t out of luck?

[Terrorfex]

Well, no, you can't be 100% on anything... you can't even be 100% the Sun will rise the next morning because it could potentially blow up while you're in bed and incinerate the planet before you've got up to have your morning Wheaties.

 

One thing you can be pretty sure about, conversely, is that if you don't execute your prisoners then you're almost certainly... pretty close to 100% in fact.. not going to execute an innocent person.

 

That's not my sole reason for being almost 100% against the death penalty, though.... some of the other issues I have are;

 

* I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the great blue yonder, or that we'll drift up to Heaven to be with Jesus. We die, we're gone, that's it. For that reason my personal ethics tell me that taking a life is the biggest 'sin' (if you like) that anyone can commit.

 

* Potential for abuse. I've seen it said that rapists should be executed. I just wonder how many women have had 'buyer's remorse' and retrospectively (and successfully) claimed rape, resulting in conviction.

 

* Political Abuse. Frame a political opponent for rape, murder, paedophilia, whatever, he's executed and out of the way forever. Tempting stuff.

 

* Threshold. At what point do you set the cut-off point for execution? It's not the same as jailing someone for mugging or petty violence. Let's say some young guy gets arrested for fighting repeatedly, as a lot of young guys will. do you really implement an X strikes and you're out policy?

 

* Cost. The cost of repeated appeals from Death Row inmates is far in excess of the cost of incarceration. The argument against that is that you set the number of potential appeals and allow no more. so if a convict has had his allocation of appeals and compelling evidence is later uncovered that would get him acquitted, is he just sh*t out of luck?

 

 

Well, for me, the first two arguments aren't exclusive to the death penalty. If the taking of a life is the biggest sin that can be committed by a government, the sin right behind it is the removal of a person's liberty, their right to choose not to live for what might be fifty years or more, in a concrete box. Life imprisonment (the alternative) serves no purpose apart from satisfying the desire for vengeance for the family or person aggrieved; it sates that thirst, but really, that's no way to build a system.

 

Since vengeance is a personal matter which by and large, shouldn't come into the equation outside the wronged party, the punishment handed down is therefore a question of either handing down a course of action to correct the perceived wrong (An eye for an eye) or correcting the abhorrent behaviour that cause the crime to be committed in the first place (Rehabilitation).

 

I don't believe in the former, and the latter's moot when the sentence is Life Imprisonment.

 

The second appointment, political abuse, doesn't really stand in the way of a Death Penalty; any government sufficiently motivated to remove enemies using the justice system could just as easily use imprisonment every bit as effectively as execution : Case in point Apartheid South Africa, Russia and the former USSR, Zimbabwe, etc. Political abuse is a reality on all levels, and there have been nations that were anything but democratic that managed to silence their perceived enemies without taking their lives.

 

Threshold : I've no interest in a California-style "Three Strikes Law"; the facts indicate that system doesn't lessen re-offending or prevent first-time crime any more so than traditional sentencing. The Death Penalty remains the ultimate punishment, and it should remain for the ultimate crimes: Murder, Rape, Child Molestation, etc.

 

Finally, Cost : The maxim "Execution costs more than Life Imprisonment," is an old one. Here's an examination of that statement (not my own work) :

 

 

Here's a claim that it is more expensive for the state to execute a criminal than to incarcerate him for life. Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ("LWOP") at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA (Justice for All) estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases.

 

And life without parole prisoners face, on average, 30 or 40 years in prison while the annual cost of incarceration is $40,000 to $50,000 a year for each prisoner or more! There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive - from $1.2 to $3.6 million - than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP.

 

The $34,200 is conservative, if TIME Magazine's (2/7/94) research is accurate. TIME found that, nationwide, the average cell cost is $24,000/yr. and the maximum security cell cost is $75,000/yr. (as of12/95). Opponents claim that LWOP should replace the DP. Therefore, any cost calculations should be based specifically on cell costs for criminals who have committed the exact same category of offense - in other words, cost comparisons are valid only if you compare the costs of DP-equivalent LWOP cases to the cost of DP cases. The $34,200/yr. cell cost assumes that only 20% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in maximum security cost cells and that 80% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in average cost cells. A very conservative estimate. The $60,000/yr., for those on death row, assumes that such cells will average a cost equal to 80% of the $75,000/yr. for the most expensive maximum security cells. A very high estimate. Even though we are calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent LWOP cases are relevant.

 

Annual cost increases are based upon: 1) historical increases in prison costs, including judicial decisions regarding prison conditions,and the national inflation rate; 2) medical costs, including the immense cost of geriatric care, associated with real LWOP sentences; 3) injury or death to the inmate by violence; 4) injury or death to others caused by the inmate (3 and 4 anticipate no DP and that prisoners, not fearing additional punishment, other than loss of privileges, may increase the likelihood of violence. One could make the same assumptions regarding those on death row. The difference is that death row inmates will average 6 years incarceration vs. 50 years projected for LWOP); 5) the risk and the perceived risk of escape; and 6) the justifiable lack of confidence by the populace in our legislators, governors, parole boards and judges, i.e. a violent inmate will be released upon society.

 

$75,000 for trial and appeals cost, for DP-equivalent LWOP cases, assumes that the DP is not an option. It is believed that this cost estimate is very low. It is over-estimated that DP cases will cost twenty times more, on average, or $1.5 million. This exaggerated estimate states that the DP will have twenty times more investigation cost, defense and prosecution cost, including court time, guilt/innocence stage, sentencing stage and appellate review time and cost than DP equivalent LWOP cases. Even though abolitionists have greatly exaggerated the cost of DP cases, DP cases still prove to be significantly less expensive, over time, than the DP equivalent LWOP cases.

 

6 years on death row, prior to execution, reflects the new habeas corpus reform laws, at both the state and federal levels. Some anti-death penalty groups speculate that such time may actually become only 4 years. If so, then DP cases would cost even that much less than the DP equivalent LWOP cases. However, the average time on death row, for those executed from 1973-1994, was 8 years. Therefore, 6 years seems more likely. Even using the 8 year average, the DP equivalent LWOP cases are still $1 million more expensive than their DP counterparts ($2 million @ 2% annual increase).

 

So the death penalty costs reside mainly in appeals costs. Life without parole prisoners get the same appeals and should be considered to bear the same costs.

[Ke1t]

Well, for me, the first two arguments aren't exclusive to the death penalty. If the taking of a life is the biggest sin that can be committed by a government, the sin right behind it is the removal of a person's liberty, their right to choose not to live for what might be fifty years or more, in a concrete box. Life imprisonment (the alternative) serves no purpose apart from satisfying the desire for vengeance for the family or person aggrieved; it sates that thirst, but really, that's no way to build a system.

 

Not true. The primary reason for life imprisonment, in my estimation/opinion, is to remove certain individuals from society, not as punishment but for the safety of the community. That's the idea behind Kelt Island... that individuals who have shown themselves incapable of rehabilitation, or incapable of operating within the law, are removed from that society entirely. A prison would serve that purpose, an island would serve the same purpose without bars. This isn't primarily punishment for the criminal, but a means by which to prevent that individual from causing harm to aforementioned society.

 

Since vengeance is a personal matter which by and large, shouldn't come into the equation outside the wronged party, the punishment handed down is therefore a question of either handing down a course of action to correct the perceived wrong (An eye for an eye) or correcting the abhorrent behaviour that cause the crime to be committed in the first place (Rehabilitation).

 

I don't believe in the former, and the latter's moot when the sentence is Life Imprisonment.

 

That would be contingent upon the premise that life imprisonment is a purely vengeful means of punishment, which as I've demonstrated, it by no means need be. Certainly from my point of view it's less punishment and more logical resolution.

 

The second appointment, political abuse, doesn't really stand in the way of a Death Penalty; any government sufficiently motivated to remove enemies using the justice system could just as easily use imprisonment every bit as effectively as execution : Case in point Apartheid South Africa, Russia and the former USSR, Zimbabwe, etc. Political abuse is a reality on all levels, and there have been nations that were anything but democratic that managed to silence their perceived enemies without taking their lives.

 

Well, that's not really true either. Look at Lech Walesa or Neslon Mandela, political prisoners who actually ended up leaders of their respective countries and winners of Nobel Prizes. Execution would, to put it mildly, have made those achievements somewhat tricky. And without their spiritual, if not physical, leadership and inspiration, from prison can we be certain that there would have been the political and social changes in their countries without them?

 

 

Threshold : I've no interest in a California-style "Three Strikes Law"; the facts indicate that system doesn't lessen re-offending or prevent first-time crime any more so than traditional sentencing. The Death Penalty remains the ultimate punishment, and it should remain for the ultimate crimes: Murder, Rape, Child Molestation, etc.

 

Again, just taking rape into the equation for a moment... I can imagine many instances of rape being called retrospectively. A conviction for what was consensual sex leads to execution? The margin for error in that instance alone should horrify us.

 

Finally, Cost : The maxim "Execution costs more than Life Imprisonment," is an old one. Here's an examination of that statement (not my own work) :

 

Equally, this isn't my work... rather the work of an Independent study in California, one of the Death Row States.

 

Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2008)

 

"The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California's current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually."

 

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

 

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

 

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

 

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

 

Conclusion:

The report concludes that not enough is being done to track death penalty expenses. The report recommends tracking more of these costs to provide greater transparency and accountability for a system that costs California hundreds of millions. Finally, this report demonstrate that California's death penalty is arbitrary, unnecessary and a waste of critical resources.Read the report.

 

Most studies I've seen on this, and I've seen a few, support the claim that it costs more to execute than incarcerate for life.

 

Though with Kelt's Island you're looking at the price of a helicopter ride there and back. So 100 bucks or so.

 

Tell me it doesn't make fiscal and humanitarian sense

[daytripping]

This debate is getting too complicated, I can't keep up.

 

Just kill all paedo's and child murderers and give police killers early release, job done.