# Death Penalty?



## Corporal Hicks (Jan 13, 2005)

Hi,
Over here in Britain, and I believe in alot of European countries we dont have the death penalty. 
I was just going to ask you guys in American and other nations which have the death penalty, or indeed anybody who has a particular view on the subject to say if they think that it works or not? Is it costing innocent people lives? Or is it an effective way or clearing the "scum" of the streets? Or maybe a way of keeping the law abiding population happy knowing that their local mass murderer is currently facing lethal injection?

What about the ways death is delt? Should it be more painful, for surely their crime should result in them suffering like their victims or victims family? I'm unsure of the topic, what do you guys think?

Regards


----------



## TonyM. (Jan 13, 2005)

Never has worked and never will.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 13, 2005)

The death penalty has its place. I'm thinking of serial murderers such as Ted Bundy. The death penalty stopped them (ie. they're no longer alive). They were true serial killers and would have killed again if they were alive and outside the prison system. Jeff Dahmer deserved the death penalty, although he was killed by other inmates while in prison.

    - Ceicei


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 13, 2005)

I think that for a death penalty to be effective as a deterent, it has to be something that is on someone's mind when they are about to commit a crime.  "If I do this, I will probably be executed".  Unfortunately, at least in the US, given the chance of getting away with something, they length of time before trial, the appeals, the plea bargains, the appeals of the sentance, then the stays of execution and the politics involved (different governers have differnt opinions, etc..) the death penalty is not really a deterent because it's not viewed of as definite possibility.  So it's really become just the utimate punishment

I don't have anything against it as a concept, but it probably doesn't mean much in how it's currently carried out here


----------



## Zepp (Jan 13, 2005)

The death penalty for crimes has been used since before recorded human history.  If it was actually an effective deterent, don't you think we would have stopped killing each at some point in time, in some place that used it?

You could try to argue that capital punishment is intended to save us money, by getting rid of the worst offenders and preventing us taxpayers from paying to keep them in prison.  But this argument is is refuted by the fact that it now costs more to put someone on "death row" here in the U.S., and keep them there until their execution, than it does to imprison them for life.

Capital punishment serves no practical purpose.

Wait, let me take that back.  Capital punishment apparently provides a way for the state of Texas to get rid of some black people.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 13, 2005)

I think random assassinations by the state would be an equally effective deterent. Once every week or so, the state should walk up behind someone and shoot them in the head. 

Quick effective, and likely to remove a guilty party from society.

Michael


----------



## ShadowKnight (Jan 13, 2005)

In some aspects, the death penalty can be somewhat of a more humane thing to do. 

 Take the recent Scott Peterson trial for example. He murdered his wife and unborn child and was caught, tried, and sentenced to death. This however wont take place until about 20 years from now. His only other choice was life in prison. 

 If a man is sentanced for life, his life is over. To the public, he is dead and forgotten. Never to be seen or heard from again. Ya someone might visit him again but they would only be visiting a ghost. An apparition of his former self. Prison changes a person and not for the best. 

 Scott will serve the 20+ years in prison and then he will be set free. In my opinion, a social death can be worse than a physical one. When you are expiriencing social death, your confines become you and one can for a better release. 

 Death penalty shouldnt be viewed as slaughter, assassination, murder. It should be viewed as a transition from your physical body to a more natural state.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jan 13, 2005)

I agree, it takes a lot more money to execute someone than what it costs to keep them in jail for a life sentence. Not worth it.

Though I don't want such a thing to happen out of fear of abuse or a huge margin of error, if we came up with a way to cheaply put a man on death row and greatly reduce the number of years they would sit in prision I would think the death penalty would be something to consider. It costs something like $25,000/yr to house an inmate. The public school I went to received about $6,500 a child per year. Think of all the money we would free up for our floundering schools. 



> *Death penalty shouldnt be viewed as slaughter, assassination, murder*. It should be viewed as a transition from your physical body to a more natural state.


I thought on the death certificate for executed inmates they put "Murder" as the cause of death......

Along those lines, I think they should make executions quick and painless if a country decides to have such a punishment. If nothing else, think of the psychological stress on those who administer the test and basically torture someone as they slowly die from a painful execution. I heard somewhere that the firing squad has the lowest margin of error out of all present methods of execution in the United States. As far as I know, no one has botched that.


----------



## Raewyn (Jan 14, 2005)

Im in sort of two minds about it.  The bible says "An eye for and Eye" or you could pay back in kind.  But unfortunatley there are too many people being wrongfully imprisoned. so your damned if you do and damned if you dont!!!! We do not have the death penalty over here, but our jail's here are like health spa's.  I dont think they act as deterrents.  We have people over here who reoffend just to get back in jail as they cant seem to cope in the outside world!!!  Jails arnt what they used to be!!!!


----------



## Raewyn (Jan 14, 2005)

Oh and another thing, I might be getting off the subject here so do correct me if I am.  

I was having a discussion with the guys at work about our jail systems here. Because of all the human rights issues, obviously when you go to jail those rights still apply. So at Christmas the inmates get a good cooked Christmas dinner, when they work they get paid etc etc. But Ive been thinking, most of them are in jail for having abused other people's rights, so why should they have rights!!!!  Am I just being a bit one-eyed???.  I would rather someone go to jail and pay my taxes to keep the jail operating while they pay for their crimes without rights that inmates get nowadays in jail, or spend mega dollars to have for example a petafile(cant spell it) who has gone to jail for 2 years out on 24 hour supervision with two people keeping an eye on him all that time just so that he can reoffend at a later date!!!!  Arnt jails supposed to act as deterrents. Over here they are like santuarys!!!


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 14, 2005)

Zepp said:
			
		

> The death penalty for crimes has been used since before recorded human history.  If it was actually an effective deterent, don't you think we would have stopped killing each at some point in time, in some place that used it?
> 
> You could try to argue that capital punishment is intended to save us money, by getting rid of the worst offenders and preventing us taxpayers from paying to keep them in prison.  But this argument is is refuted by the fact that it now costs more to put someone on "death row" here in the U.S., and keep them there until their execution, than it does to imprison them for life.
> 
> ...




IMO the only reason that the death penalty is costing taxpayers more than keeping them alive in prison til they grow old and die is because of the extreme lengths of time they spend on death-row. Bundy lived 17 something odd years before facing his final punishment. This, IMO is stupid. Yes, the man deserved to die but it should've happened at least within two years of his sentence. This is what I think costs the taxpayers money because death-row inmates are kept in an entirely seperate part of the prison, away from the general populace. Private cells and so forth mean more expenses. 

As a deterrent, I agree that because of the long wait, stays, appeals and so forth don't make it as frightening to those that deserve it. If capital punishment were dealt out swiftly with no stays and multiple appeals then perhaps it would be a better deterrent. Murderers and other deserving crimiinals (i.e. serial rapists and chronic child molesters and kidnappers that kill their victims) aren't afraid of it because they know they got a long while to live (relatively speaking). 

Methods? They're not as scary either. Ole' Sparky (aka electric chair) is rarely used but was/is terrifying enough to make the unrepentant killer sorry in the last day/moments before execution. The calm, passive Lethal Injection is too soft for those who violently murdered their victims, those guys are put to sleep before the lethal dose is inserted into the mix, they have no sense that they're dying, no fear... just a peaceful passing. A lot kinder than what they gave their victims. The Gas Chamber is no longer used but should be. We got loads of chemical weapons (nerve-gas) that we could use. Such cruel and unusual punishment might be too horrific for some people. But when you consider the agony that some murder victims go through prior to their deaths that is inflicted on them by the sadistic ones... they (the killers) should deserve no less.  So ya, they should suffer as much as their victims, alibet not in the same way but just as frightening and soul awakening as possible. 



			
				Zepp said:
			
		

> Wait, let me take that back.  Capital punishment apparently provides a way for the state of Texas to get rid of some black people.


I'm going to ask you to clairify this statement before commenting. What exactly do you mean by this? Is this a personal opinion or a possible statement of how Texas seems racially biased because of their (dis??)portionally high numbers of death sentences with people of color? 

Capital punishment (IMO) is practical in that it rids our society those who are most dangerous whenever/wherever possible. I think we just need to shorten the length of time an convicted criminal stays on death-row. It'll at least keep their lawyers busy in working to find evidence that their client is really innocent.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 14, 2005)

Raisin said:
			
		

> Oh and another thing, I might be getting off the subject here so do correct me if I am.
> 
> I was having a discussion with the guys at work about our jail systems here. Because of all the human rights issues, obviously when you go to jail those rights still apply. So at Christmas the inmates get a good cooked Christmas dinner, when they work they get paid etc etc. But Ive been thinking, most of them are in jail for having abused other people's rights, so why should they have rights!!!!  Am I just being a bit one-eyed???.  I would rather someone go to jail and pay my taxes to keep the jail operating while they pay for their crimes without rights that inmates get nowadays in jail, or spend mega dollars to have for example a petafile(cant spell it) who has gone to jail for 2 years out on 24 hour supervision with two people keeping an eye on him all that time just so that he can reoffend at a later date!!!!  Arnt jails supposed to act as deterrents. Over here they are like santuarys!!!



For many prisoners they are sanctuaries. However; pedophiles are generally treated harsher by their fellow (non-pedo) inmates. Apparently even if they commit crimes to another adult, they still hold a sexual assault/offense against a child a reason to punish and view them as lower than scum.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jan 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think random assassinations by the state would be an equally effective deterent. Once every week or so, the state should walk up behind someone and shoot them in the head.
> 
> Quick effective, and likely to remove a guilty party from society.
> 
> Michael


Lol! Thats Random!


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jan 14, 2005)

Raisin said:
			
		

> Oh and another thing, I might be getting off the subject here so do correct me if I am.
> 
> I was having a discussion with the guys at work about our jail systems here. Because of all the human rights issues, obviously when you go to jail those rights still apply. So at Christmas the inmates get a good cooked Christmas dinner, when they work they get paid etc etc. But Ive been thinking, most of them are in jail for having abused other people's rights, so why should they have rights!!!! Am I just being a bit one-eyed???. I would rather someone go to jail and pay my taxes to keep the jail operating while they pay for their crimes without rights that inmates get nowadays in jail, or spend mega dollars to have for example a petafile(cant spell it) who has gone to jail for 2 years out on 24 hour supervision with two people keeping an eye on him all that time just so that he can reoffend at a later date!!!! Arnt jails supposed to act as deterrents. Over here they are like santuarys!!!


I agree with that, as I said in another thread. It seems like the Criminal's Justice System not the Criminal Justice System.


----------



## Zepp (Jan 14, 2005)

MACaver, 

My comment about Texas executing black people was just a sarcastic jibe alluding to the disproportionate number of people on death row in that state who's race is listed as "black."  It wasn't really intended for serious disscussion, and I'm sorry if you or anyone else found that remark offensive.  But if you really want to get into the overuse and probable abuses of the death penalty in Texas, and in some other states, I'm sure we could keep a discussion going in the Study for a couple pages.

(For those who want to see some statistics, try this page: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm)



> As a deterrent, I agree that because of the long wait, stays, appeals and so forth don't make it as frightening to those that deserve it. If capital punishment were dealt out swiftly with no stays and multiple appeals then perhaps it would be a better deterrent. Murderers and other deserving crimiinals (i.e. serial rapists and chronic child molesters and kidnappers that kill their victims) aren't afraid of it because they know they got a long while to live (relatively speaking).



You do realize of course, that the lengthy appeals process would protect your rights if you were accused of a capital crime, do you not?



> I think we just need to shorten the length of time an convicted criminal stays on death-row. It'll at least keep their lawyers busy in working to find evidence that their client is really innocent.



Assuming that they have a decent lawyer.  Few of the people on death row here in the U.S. today could afford Scott Peterson's attorney.

Raisin, question for you (or anyone else familiar with the Bible): In what part of the Bible can I find the passage dealing with "an eye for an eye?"  As far as I know, that's a reference to the code of Hammaurabi, a Babylonian king.  But I'm not the most biblically savvy person.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 14, 2005)

Raisin said:
			
		

> Oh and another thing, I might be getting off the subject here so do correct me if I am.
> 
> I was having a discussion with the guys at work about our jail systems here. Because of all the human rights issues, obviously when you go to jail those rights still apply. So at Christmas the inmates get a good cooked Christmas dinner, when they work they get paid etc etc. But Ive been thinking, most of them are in jail for having abused other people's rights, so why should they have rights!!!! Am I just being a bit one-eyed???. I would rather someone go to jail and pay my taxes to keep the jail operating while they pay for their crimes without rights that inmates get nowadays in jail, or spend mega dollars to have for example a petafile(cant spell it) who has gone to jail for 2 years out on 24 hour supervision with two people keeping an eye on him all that time just so that he can reoffend at a later date!!!! Arnt jails supposed to act as deterrents. Over here they are like santuarys!!!


You know what they don't have though, is the ability to go for a walk on a nice autumn day. They probably don't have the ability to decide what time they are going to bed, or what time they are going to wake up. The probably don't have the ability to decide what to wear each day. 

There was an episode of the television M*A*S*H at the end of which Frank Burns was confined to his tent; Hawkeye Peirce would step outside the tent, then inside the tent, then outside the tent, then inside the tent. With each step, he taunted Burns about 'Freedom'.

When society takes away the ability for a citizen to walk where they want to walk, to wear what they want to wear, it is far more restrictive than having a Christmas Turkey, I think.

And of those offenders that re-offend because they can't adjust to life on the 'outside'; I think, perhaps, New Zealand could examine some 'transition' plans that could reduce this recidivism. I don't the United States will ever be so enlightened. I think it demands an examination of what is it about the stability of a prison that is comforting to the offender, how can those comforts be recreated outside the jail cell.

Michael

- Yes, my earlier comment was 'Random' and a bit sarcastic. There are several other threads about the Death Penalty on the board. I am 100% against capital punishment. There is no justificaiton, in my opinion, for the state to take the life of a citizen.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 14, 2005)

Raisin said:
			
		

> Oh and another thing, I might be getting off the subject here so do correct me if I am.





			
				Raisin said:
			
		

> I was having a discussion with the guys at work about our jail systems here. Because of all the human rights issues, obviously when you go to jail those rights still apply. So at Christmas the inmates get a good cooked Christmas dinner, when they work they get paid etc etc. But Ive been thinking, most of them are in jail for having abused other people's rights, so why should they have rights!!!! Am I just being a bit one-eyed???. I would rather someone go to jail and pay my taxes to keep the jail operating while they pay for their crimes without rights that inmates get nowadays in jail, or spend mega dollars to have for example a petafile(cant spell it) who has gone to jail for 2 years out on 24 hour supervision with two people keeping an eye on him all that time just so that he can reoffend at a later date!!!! Arnt jails supposed to act as deterrents. Over here they are like santuarys!!!




You know what they don't have though, is the ability to go for a walk on a nice autumn day. They probably don't have the ability to decide what time they are going to bed, or what time they are going to wake up. The probably don't have the ability to decide what to wear each day. 

There was an episode of the television M*A*S*H at the end of which Frank Burns was confined to his tent; Hawkeye Peirce would step outside the tent, then inside the tent, then outside the tent, then inside the tent. With each step, he taunted Burns about 'Freedom'.

When society takes away the ability for a citizen to walk where they want to walk, to wear what they want to wear, it is far more restrictive than having a Christmas Turkey, I think.

And of those offenders that re-offend because they can't adjust to life on the 'outside'; I think, perhaps, New Zealand could examine some 'transition' plans that could reduce this recidivism. I don't the United States will ever be so enlightened. I think it demands an examination of what is it about the stability of a prison that is comforting to the offender, how can those comforts be recreated outside the jail cell.

Michael

- Yes, my earlier comment was 'Random' and a bit sarcastic. There are several other threads about the Death Penalty on the board. I am 100% against capital punishment. There is no justificaiton, in my opinion, for the state to take the life of a citizen.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 14, 2005)

Zepp said:
			
		

> MACaver,
> 
> My comment about Texas executing black people was just a sarcastic jibe alluding to the disproportionate number of people on death row in that state who's race is listed as "black."  It wasn't really intended for serious disscussion, and I'm sorry if you or anyone else found that remark offensive.  But if you really want to get into the overuse and probable abuses of the death penalty in Texas, and in some other states, I'm sure we could keep a discussion going in the Study for a couple pages.
> 
> ...



Yes, okay. That's why I asked for clairifcation because it's kinda hard to hear a sarcastic tone on a BB  No foul no harm. 

IMO anyone who breaks the law as governed for/by/of the people (should) have automatically have their "rights" revoked/suspended or simply thrown out the window. They violated the rights of their victims, took away their right to choose by murdering them. Thus should they be allowed better? 
I think this is going to be my whole point on support of capital punishment because the loss of life and the callous manner/attitude that they were taken... Why should we be treating those that commit such acts with respect and give them dignified ways to die?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 14, 2005)

_ Raisin, question for you (or anyone else familiar with the Bible): In what part of the Bible can I find the passage dealing with "an eye for an eye?" As far as I know, that's a reference to the code of Hammaurabi, a Babylonian king. But I'm not the most biblically savvy person._



> "If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him." _Leviticus 24:19:20_


 
 This was generally taken to set a level of justice, to limit retribution, establishing not only a punishment for wrong-doing but also in keeping that punishment in level with the crime, ie...if a neighbor injurs you, the punishment was not allowed to be any more than the initial injury.

 In other words, not just that if a someone pokes out your eye you *get* to poke out his eye in return but that is someone pokes out your eye you are not allowed to do *any more* than take out their eye


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 14, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _ Raisin, question for you (or anyone else familiar with the Bible): In what part of the Bible can I find the passage dealing with "an eye for an eye?" As far as I know, that's a reference to the code of Hammaurabi, a Babylonian king. But I'm not the most biblically savvy person._
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes true, but we (should) now understand that it's metaphorically speaking. Although the ancient Jews did take the letter of the law seriously, it's transformed from the time of Christ and even the pious Jews that didn't believe in him still made their changes and followed the context of the (old) law(s) and adapted them. 
There are still some muslims in the world that follow their old laws to the letter. That recent outrage over the proposed stoning of a woman caught in adultery in Africa not too long ago, is a good example. 
I dunno if my views on capital punishment and the methods (I described) are "old-world" thinking or not. But I do get riled when I think about how good prisoners get it compared to the crimes they committed.  Perhaps I'm speaking subconciously as a previous victim of a violent crime. But as liberal as I am I still feel it's punishment meets the crime.


----------



## Raewyn (Jan 14, 2005)

Zepp said:
			
		

> MACaver,
> 
> 
> 
> Raisin, question for you (or anyone else familiar with the Bible): In what part of the Bible can I find the passage dealing with "an eye for an eye?" As far as I know, that's a reference to the code of Hammaurabi, a Babylonian king. But I'm not the most biblically savvy person.


 

Sorry, I made a mistake by saying that, I realised an hour later after I had posted this and gone to bed.  I knew someone would pick up on that!!!


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jan 16, 2005)

An eye for an eye makes everyone blind... Ghandi!


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> An eye for an eye makes everyone blind... Ghandi!


Yeah, well it's probably why they realized that: "Hey! Do you think God was speaking metaphorically?? "  :idunno: Like they had a bunch of blind people walking around, screaming at the top of their lungs going: "I'll get you! If I had another eye I'll get you!"


----------



## Adept (Jan 16, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> An eye for an eye makes everyone blind... Ghandi!


 In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king...


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 16, 2005)

Zepp said:
			
		

> MACaver,
> 
> My comment about Texas executing black people was just a sarcastic jibe alluding to the disproportionate number of people on death row in that state who's race is listed as "black." It wasn't really intended for serious disscussion, and I'm sorry if you or anyone else found that remark offensive. But if you really want to get into the overuse and probable abuses of the death penalty in Texas, and in some other states, I'm sure we could keep a discussion going in the Study for a couple pages.
> 
> (For those who want to see some statistics, try this page: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm)


 The problem is not that there are too many blacks on death row but rather not enough whites. It should be applied equally for the crimes of rape, murder, molestation, etc.


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 16, 2005)

-Actually, if I remember the number correctly from college, the cost of housing one criminal in a facility, not sure if it was state or federal prison, is somewhere around $75,000 a year. Per inmate. And considering the prison population to be  above 2 million, the highest in the world, (I think) that adds up to a lot of taxes. For cases involving capital punishment, perhaps they should set a time limit for appeals, say two years for a defense lawyer to present any arguement or evidence concerning his client. That would require, of course, a separate branch of the judicial system designed only to hear these types of cases. Would it be worth creating this type of court to help clear out death row? Would money be saved from keeping them alive in prison for years and years? Maybe. And if death row was cleaned out, at least until new cases arrived, this branch could hear other cases involving long term prison sentences. Just an idea, don't really know if its feasible.

-And the problems with the number of blacks and whites on death row...it goes back to the system, the lack of education, the level of poverty, and many other facets of life in general. Its all connected, to be certain. I'm horrified when an innocent is punished and the guilty let go. Unfortunately, I don't think the system, as it is now, is designed to accomodate the number of Americans moving through it.

A---)


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 16, 2005)

I think the number 75,000 / inmate / year is exceedingly high. On another thread on this board, I recently posted a link to this information, although I can't find it now. 

As I recall; 
the cost of Federal incarceration was perhaps, 29,000 / inmate / year
the cost of State incarceration averaged about 26,000 / inmate / year

Of course, these were averages which included minimum, medium, and high security inmates. I'm sure there is a cost differential there somewhere.

Of course, another way to 'clear out death row', as you put it, is to eliminate the death penalty.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 16, 2005)

The problem with the death penalty for serial murderers and others of that ilk is that not all of them can control their impulses.  

I recently read a case study from some years ago where a fifteen year old was thrown from a horse and fractured his skull.  He woke with partial paralysis (which I believe he recovered from) and went through an instant personality change, in addition to having seizures.

He became hypersexual, publicly masturbating, propositioning his sisters and mothers, and fondling them and strangers in public.  His mood was fragile, and he would fly into a rage and hit people with little provocation.  One day he strangled his mother and sexually assaulted her corpse.

This behavior was due to the injury received in the fall, which likely damaged his amygdala and hypothalamus.

Brain injury and violence oft go hand in hand.  Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and violence have a strong correlation.  Death row inmates show a higher proportion of TBI than other inmates.  12 out of 16 death row inmates in one study had TBI*.

What then?  Do we kill them as a deterrent to those children who might fall of swing sets and horses?  

Consider the case study of one Larry Robison, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who was convicted of murder.  Prior to killing five people (in one night) he was repeatedly refused treatment, "unless he does something violent,"  in spite of his parents tireless efforts to get him help at various hospitals and institutions.

While sitting on death row for sixteen years he saw a psychiatrist only twice--and that at the behest of his parents-- and received no treatment or medication for his condition.   He deteriorated steadily.

During his trial his attorneys were not allowed to present evidence showing a brother, uncle, and grandfather had all been found to be paranoid schizophrenics.  It ran in the family.


Larry Robison was executed on January 21, 2000.


So...is this a tragedy, or a morality play?


http://www.nmha.org/position/deathpenalty/adultscasestudy.cfm


Regards,


Steve


http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/may01/mental.html

*David Freedman & David Hemenway, "Precursors of Lethal Violence: A Death Row Sample," 50 Soc. Sci. & Med. 1757 (2000).


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 16, 2005)

-Eliminating the death penalty would lead to placing more inmates in the category of long term sentences...which, yeah, isn't different than sitting on death row for years. I think if capital punishment was used correctly, as in a deterrent that has some teeth, people would refrain from some criminal activity. But the processing of capital punishment cases would have to change, and that isn't likely to happen. Criminals simply do not fear the law in the way they should, if we had quick and harsh punishment, an effective system. Some are just way to willing to "do the time" because many know they'll get out sooner than later, due to overcrowding. Maybe when someone commits a crime, they should aim somewhere else, like their money. That may depend on the crime. Its like trying to do a big jigsaw puzzle, where even the pieces themselves are changing on you. In its current state, the death penalty is worthless.

A---)


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 17, 2005)

Darksoul said:
			
		

> I think if capital punishment was used correctly, as in a deterrent that has some teeth, people would refrain from some criminal activity.




*The cost of incarcerating a prisoner for life is cheaper than killing him.* 

The appeal system in death penalty cases ends up costing the taxpayer a heck of a lot more.  I'm directly cutting and pasting the following, with my own added underlining for emphasis:


Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.

The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases. 

The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case). 

The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater. 

The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case. 

Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days. 

The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment  (Duke University, May 1993). On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion spent since 1976 on the death penalty.  The study,"The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina" is available on line at www-pps.aas.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/comnc.pdf.

Total cost of Indiana's death penalty is 38% greater than the total cost of life without parole sentences--A study by Indiana's Criminal Law Study Commission found this to be true, assuming that 20% of death sentences are overturned and resentenced to life. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002)

*The following is provided to counter the $75,000 per year incarceration cost provided by someone earlier:*

The cost of one inmate in a traditional medium security facility is $27.98 per day, which is $851.71 per month. The average time an offender spends in a medium security facility is 20.5 months. $851.71 x 20.5 months = $17,460.

Death Row studies show that incarceration costs approximately $20,000 per year, per inmate. Condemned inmates average 9.9 years (down from 11.2 in 1996) awaiting execution. By the time someone is executed, taxpayers have shelled out about $2 million in legal fees for each death row inmates defense.


*Studies on the deterrent effect of the death penalty show it isn't effective.*

These are two studies of many done on the issue:

Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas. Authors John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart examined executions in Texas between 1984 and 1997. They speculated that if a deterrent effect were to exist, it would be found in Texas because of the high number of death sentences and executions within the state. Using patterns in executions across the study period and the relatively steady rate of murders in Texas, the authors found no evidence of a deterrent effect. The study concluded that the number of executions was unrelated to murder rates in general, and that the number of executions was unrelated to felony rates.  (45 Crime and Delinquency 481-93 (1999)). 

Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty: Another Examination of OklahomaÕs Return to Capital Punishment. In this study, author William Bailey speculated that if executions had a deterrent effect in Oklahoma, it would be observable by comparing murder rates and rates of sub-types of murder, such as felony-murder, stranger robbery-related killings, stranger non-felony murder, and argument-related killings, before and after the resumption of executions. Bailey examined the period between 1989 and 1991 for total killings and sub-types of killing. After controlling for a number of variables, Bailey found that there was no evidence for a deterrent effect. He did, however, find that there was a significant increase in stranger killings and non-felony stranger killings after Oklahoma resumed executions after a 25-year moratorium. (36 Criminology 711-33 (1998)). 



Sources:

http://crimemagazine.com/TRIVIA/deathrow.htm
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7
http://www.ncsc.dni.us/is/MEMOS/Archives/S95-1798.HTM
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 17, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *The cost of incarcerating a prisoner for life is cheaper than killing him.*
> 
> The appeal system in death penalty cases ends up costing the taxpayer a heck of a lot more. I'm directly cutting and pasting the following, with my own added underlining for emphasis:
> 
> ...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 17, 2005)

Killing them simply isn't a deterrent.  Study after study shows this.

Homicides are committed by people who either act in the heat of passion or who kill with premeditation.  

The former don't take into account penalties when emotions run so high.  To illustrate, I provide a fanciful example of dubious contemplation on the part of a heating and cooling repairman who arrives home unexpectedly at his double wide trailer in Davenport, Iowa:

"Tanya is having torrid sex with another man...indeed, it appears to be my brother!  I feel I could easily kill both in a rage of passion, but should err on the side of caution lest I face prosecution and harsh penalties on the part of the state.  Knowing the law as I do from my widespread reading, I can anticipate the possible financial and legal consequences of rash action on my part.  Thus fortified with this hasty assessment, I will forgo violence and instead buy a case of Pabst Blue Ribbons and a bottle of Jack Daniels and horribly intoxicate myself to the mournful tunes of my favorite C&W station.  I shall take my dog 'Bo' with me for company during this morose debauch."

Get my point?  Many who kill haven't the education or emotional capacity at such moments to pause and reflect on the consequences of their rage.

Those who premeditate their violence don't expect to get caught--ergo penalties of any nature are rarely taken into account by them. 

If they have poor impulse control, that exacerbates the issue.  If they're thrilled by the risk of getting caught, that too complicates things.

And if they don't care if they live or die, deterrence simply isn't going to happen.  This, among all things, might be a key factor to consider.

James Gilligan, M.D., in his book "Violence," explores the nature of the violent criminal.  He worked in the prison systems as a psychiatrist for years and reports that men who kill have deep and profound levels of shame.  The shame isn't based upon the homicide...the shame drives them to the homicide.  They acquire this self-loathing while growing up.  These men allready feel dead to the world, and killing them merely formalizes the procedure.  They often save the state the trouble by killing themselves.  Gilligan gives some chilling case studies.

It's a good book and worth checking out.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## The Prof (Jan 17, 2005)

It depends on what youre looking for in the death penalty. For sure it will not have an impact on crime. Statistics have proven that time and time again. The death penalty will do absolutely nothing to prevent anyone from murdering another.

From my own experience I can tell you what it will do. Twenty years ago my brothers youngest son at age 14 years, was brutally stabbed to death by a 21 year old junkie who wanted his radio. Our lives were changed from that moment to this day. 

The capture and sentencing of the killer (who is still in prison) brought quite a bit of relief to my brother and his family. But until the day my brother died he lived in miserable torment over the loss of his son. 

From my own experience, I believe that the only thing that the death penalty can possibly do is bring a revengeful satisfaction to the family members of the murdered person. To his day, there has never been any from of sympathetic apologies from the murderer or his family. The only remarks that we remember are the ones he made at his capture, "yeah, I wasted the f*****g dude.

I believe that taking another life is not a solution. It will not bring back the murdered loved one, but if it brings even the slightest satisfaction to the surviving family members, it should be done. 

Ecclesiastes 11:3 "A time to kill and a time to heal." Maybe killing the murderer would have helped heal my brothers tortured heart, maybe not. But I do know that it would have made him feel that justice had been served.

The Prof


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 17, 2005)

The Prof said:
			
		

> I believe that taking another life is not a solution. It will not bring back the murdered loved one, but if it brings even the slightest satisfaction to the surviving family members, it should be done.




That, at least, is an honest assessment.  I can respect it for that.

I'd ask you to read back a ways to one of my other posts and consider the case of the kid who killed and sexually violated his mother following a traumatic head injury.  Prior to his accident he had no history of violence.  Following the accident his behavior changed dramatically, and for the worse.

Consider too the case of the schizophrenic--who inspite of his parents best efforts to get him institutionalized--was denied medical attention because he wasn't violent.  He ended up killing five people and was executed for murder.

What satisfaction can one glean from revenging themselves upon the disabled?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 17, 2005)

-Mentally disabled criminals have long presented a challenge to law enforcement. I suppose some may see it as tragic, but something must be done with them. Otherwise, you have to pay for special care with these types of people for their needs are different from regular inmates. Maybe there is no choice but to do that. Yet I refuse to believe that we can't work towards solving the root causes of criminal activity, ie poverty, bad education, etc. I guess a person would have to be so hurt inside by the crime committed against them or significant other to gleam any satisfaction in seeing the disabled punished.

-Yet so many are also willing to do the time in prison. A roof overhead, clothing and food, for the most part, at no expense to the "customer" except for loss of time. For someone who has committed a crime that would normally warrant a death sentence, what alternatives are available, besides sitting in prison the rest of their lives? I do support the reforming of certain laws that give an offender 10-15 years for possessing a dime bag of crack. Maybe for the lesser crimes, we could do something besides throwing them in prison, make them pay back society some other way. That might free up room in the prisons for people who commit more serious offenses. Tough situation.


A---)


----------



## The Prof (Jan 17, 2005)

Hi Steve,

I think that we all know that the death penalty is a hot issue. What's right and what's wrong depends upon whose view or situation it is. I can only speak for my family. Over the years I have held a range of mixed emotions. Im for it, Im against it, etc.

Im a married priest, a father of seven, a grandfather of four, and a very prayerful person. I am also a father of a deceased child.  So many times in my imperfection I find myself in turmoil with my what I want and what I think God would want. I dont know pal, but maybe there were even the slightest hint of anything positive from the murderer I could feel better. Right or wrong, in the end we will all be held accountable for our actions. 

Thank you so much for your sincere comments.

Blessings,

The Prof


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 18, 2005)

Prof,

My belated condolences to your family.  I mean that sincerely.  I can't imagine what you've had to go through.

Cases such as yours are cut and dried.  I'd ask you to consider that other cases may seem so, yet aren't...and innocent people die for crimes they did not commit.

Bill Kurtis has written a book outlining two cases where misconduct on the part of prosecutors and/or police and incompetent defense attorneys led to the death penalty for two men.  Evidence was suppressed and testimony was denied that would have given clear and reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

The first person Kurtis writes about was sentenced after prosecutors suppressed reports from the FBI that countered testimony implicating the defendent.  In a two day trial the defendent's attorney--who was paid $15-$20 an hour for his first capital case--failed to cross examine witnesses and offered an eight sentence closing argument.  He was later disbarred for mismanaging another client's money.

In the second case, following the exoneration of the defendent on appeal another man tied with the case skipped town.  The weight of evidence indicated he was the actual murderer of the defendent's wife and children...but this evidence and testimony was not allowed during the first trial.  The suspect who skipped town--and who literally had blood on his hands the day of the murder--had not been found by the time of publication of Kurtis' book.

The Associated Press did a story of 110 men whose convictions were overturned due to DNA evidence that exonerated them.  Of these 110, 24 were found guilty of rape and murder and six were found guilty of murder alone.  None of them were guilty of the crimes with which they were charged.

The men reported that their convictions ruined their lives.  One wonders how many men across the country lost their lives unjustly because of mistakes or misconduct in the legal system that convicted them.

One death row inmate served fourteen years in prison before being exonerated by DNA evidence.  He had been charged with the rape, beating and murder of an eight year old girl.  He was convicted on the testimony of three witnesses.  One later recanted and claimed police pressured her into implicating the defendent.

He died of cancer in prison before he could be released.

Imagine, if possible, being falsely charged with such a heinous crime and being convicted of it.  You know the witnesses are bearing false witness.  You're then sentenced to a gaol for years while awaiting your execution.  Perhaps you're raped forcibly or through coercion.  You're abused verbally--perhaps physically--by guards and inmates who are disgusted by your supposed actions.  And all this while you know you are innocent.

Some might call this cruel and unusual punishment.

One of the links below provides a list of 117 people who spent an average of 9 years on death row before being pardoned, acquitted (fourteen due to DNA evidence) or having charges dismissed.  

As of last May, eighteen death row inmates have been exonerated in Illinois alone.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=428

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=293

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=1&did=1017


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 19, 2005)

The beat goes on... 


> AP
> Convicted Killer Executed in California
> U.S. National - AP
> By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
> ...


----------



## GAB (Jan 19, 2005)

Hi Prof.

What you have just said is one of the reasons I am still and always will be an Agnostic. 

It eliminates one of the big stumbling blocks of life. The problem is you have to go on with life with the frontal lobe, since it has'nt been around as long as the rest of our makeup, it is harder to understand.

I am not being disrespectful, just typing my thoughts on this complex matter.

Regards, Gary 





			
				The Prof said:
			
		

> Hi Steve,
> 
> I think that we all know that the death penalty is a hot issue. What's right and what's wrong depends upon whose view or situation it is. I can only speak for my family. Over the years I have held a range of mixed emotions. Im for it, Im against it, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAB (Jan 19, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> The beat goes on...


Well, all I can say is may God have mercy on his soul, Who's soul???
Arnies, the dirty SOB. 

Regards, Gary


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 19, 2005)

Re-read the article again GAB. In both cases both murderers didn't care about their victims, one killed his victim and then ate while the body was cooling down on the kitchen floor. What kind of heartless cold SOB is that? A person that just doesn't care one way or the other. The other guy knew what was going to happen and fetch a friend to get duct tape as he knew and PLANNED his murder. Then he tries to pass off insanity or some other crapola. 
These guys would've been too dangerous to allow them to go on living. They didn't care or regret afterwards. What manner of beasts are these? Worthy of death. 

Arnie did right turning down their appeals.


----------



## someguy (Jan 19, 2005)

I'm against the death penalty.  Yet who will listen to me.  
If it has to happen though then do you really need to sterilize the needle before you kill the person with it.  THey area about to die you know.  That one is a bit strange.


----------



## GAB (Jan 19, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Re-read the article again GAB. In both cases both murderers didn't care about their victims, one killed his victim and then ate while the body was cooling down on the kitchen floor. What kind of heartless cold SOB is that? A person that just doesn't care one way or the other. The other guy knew what was going to happen and fetch a friend to get duct tape as he knew and PLANNED his murder. Then he tries to pass off insanity or some other crapola.
> These guys would've been too dangerous to allow them to go on living. They didn't care or regret afterwards. What manner of beasts are these? Worthy of death.
> 
> Arnie did right turning down their appeals.


MACaver,

That little blue guy probably was not the best to use, I am joking about the SOB being Arnie.

I think he is doing a good job and taking some very couragous stands. My hat is off to the man. I am glad he did not stop the execution.

I will be more careful in the way I explain myself.

Regards, Gary


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 19, 2005)

I, too, cannot condone state-sanctioned murder.  

The core of my concerns, however, lie in the alarmingly large - but it would be alarming if there were only *ONE* - cases that were changed, overturned, etc., for inmates on Death Row - or for people already executed. 

It may seem like "general error" or "a bit of a mess" to some, but if you or a loved one were in that situation, I have a feeling you'd change your mind right quick about the death penalty.  

Expenses?  Prisons are one of the fastest-growing *industries*.  I believe Marriott is making a bundle off of the prisons they own, and the $$ they make off of the government, "housing more criminals for less!"  It's disgusting.


----------



## The Prof (Jan 19, 2005)

Hi Steve,

That is one of my dilemma's, the executing of innocent people.  In fact, it's a nightmare.  With all that we have gone through I would certainly rather see ten murderers go free than execute one innocent person.  

Yet I do know that we could never really know how many innocent people we have put to death.  That is one of society's shame.

Every time I see an innocent person go free, thanks to DNA I give thanks to God for the work of those who believed in a wrongfully condemned person.

Your compassion is heart warming.  Thank You!

Blessings,

Prof.




			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Prof,
> 
> My belated condolences to your family. I mean that sincerely. I can't imagine what you've had to go through.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAB (Jan 19, 2005)

Feisty,

I really do understand where you are coming from but the Beardslee execution was a no brainer...
As far as housing, that statement is a little bit confusing could you elaborate.

I really wish there was a better way also. But this will take quite a bit more time in the courts. 

I think we (courts etc.) are making headway. By the way I don't believe we should give up guns or ????

Once they decide to go the full nine yards on this no death penalty and all, the person who protects themselves will be the next (already has) thing on the list...

Interesting when you think about it, criminals are actually terrorists in our own country and they have better living conditions then an awful lot of the citizens who are not criminals... 

We have a long way to go in respects to being a civilized nation .

Regards, Gary


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 19, 2005)

A couple of thoughts from my stream of consciousness.



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> Interesting when you think about it, criminals are actually terrorists in our own country and they have better living conditions then an awful lot of the citizens who are not criminals.


To equate a 'criminal' with a 'terrorist' is unfair to both. Words mean things, and we should be careful in attempting to create synonyms where there are none.

A criminal is often acting under 'self-interest'; I want that car, so I will steal it. I want to demonstrate my power over you, so I will hurt, rape, kill you. 

A terrorist is often working under the guise of a cause larger than self interest; actions are meant to be statements. Random violence to achieve political ends.

A Criminal is not a Terrorist. Although, it is true that Terrorists are criminals.



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> Interesting when you think about it, criminals are actually terrorists in our own country and they have better living conditions then an awful lot of the citizens who are not criminals.


As you think about 'Living Conditions' and how they compare between citizens and convicted (and often accused) criminals; are you think that we should build facilities that keep convicted criminals in 'Living Conditions' equivilant to the least of our fellow citizens?

Surely, this would pose a problem. If we look at the living conditions of the least fortuneate of our neighbors, we may find that a professional security guard would look to a different line of work rather than attempt to retain professional dignity in such working conditions. Also, could security personnel effectively monitor and contain convicted criminals in an overcrowded, under-utilitied environment? 

Surely, you would recognize all the benefits to the job of detention and monitoring of convicted criminals is best served by clean, well-lighted, professional facilities. 

If you continue to think about it, that our neighbor citizens are not living in conditions equal to that of a detained criminal, is in itself, perhaps, a criminal act. While there are always some who will choose to live in conditions a detained criminal might find deplorable, shouldn't society do its best to ensure that all citizens have a minimum level of appropriate 'living conditions'?

For society to ensure a minimum level of 'food, shelter, water', I think, is not too much for the wealthiest nation on the planet.  

Maybe someday.

Mike


----------



## GAB (Jan 19, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> A couple of thoughts from my stream of consciousness.
> 
> To equate a 'criminal' with a 'terrorist' is unfair to both. Words mean things, and we should be careful in attempting to create synonyms where there are none.
> 
> ...


Hi Mike, 

I believe that in a country as wealthy and successfull as ours, we should be doing a better job for the citizens and people of this country.

In other countries. I don't believe they have the same kind of problems we have in our inner cities. Not on the same scale we have. I am talking about a country that has the same standard of living as we do +/- some.

I would still call it a form of terrorism when folks are afraid to go out at night and live afraid all the time, because of the shooting's and murder and rape and burglary and robbery etc. in their fair town. 
The name/word has been around for quite awhile, just interpreted differently now.
I feel that the type of terrorist we are seeing is doing it for their own gain, they are just mentally warped a little more then the rest.

As I have said in other post's regarding freedom and right's, we need to start making the USA a safer place to live for the people in this country. 

I am not talking about down grading the housing for criminals.

I feel it is a sad situation that criminals are in better living conditions, that is all. Something needs to be changed...

Main street kitchens have been around for a long time.
I guess that is where the President wants to return, to the private sector.
And the Gov of CA wants to hurt the public sector...
Interesting, and both are conservative Republicans.

Regards, Gary


----------



## The Prof (Jan 22, 2005)

Good Morning,

I will try to get that book this weekend.  Thanks.

Regards,

Prof



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Killing them simply isn't a deterrent. Study after study shows this.
> 
> Homicides are committed by people who either act in the heat of passion or who kill with premeditation.
> 
> ...


----------



## still learning (Jan 27, 2005)

Hello, The Death penalty and Jail sentence does not stop crime from happening in the USA. All offenders know they have more rights than the innocent. They keep getting release. We are not hard are the bad guys...guess what? they we do it again.

 IN the USA is cost the average of about $32,000 a year to house them. The cost will keep on rising. Over 70 percent of crime is from repeat offenders. They know the sentence does not mean a thing with good behavior and over crowding.

   The death penalty is not enforce or use right away and they stay in jails for years and years. So little is ever sent to die.

 Only in modern times do we have prisons. If we get rid of the most of the bad guys (death penalty) less crime will be around. At least 70 percent of the prisoners will not be able to get back into society because of there life style and not willing to change forever. It is easlier to be bad than good.

 Bad guys want the easy way and not willing to work,study and improve themselves to get better than they are now. Today you can see how easy to be out of jail. The other month (Hawaii) a lady bookeeper stole over $900,000 from her company-the sentence 1 year in jail. What does this tell other embezzlers? - Short sentence if caught. Over 40,000 people in Hawaii goes to Las Vegas a month, many with bad gambling habits.

 What will work?........One way is to eliminate the repeat offenders permanently. Today the laws are not working to stop crime?.....Just my thoughts and may not be use for other things.....Aloha


----------



## still learning (Jan 27, 2005)

Hello, The Death penalty and Jail sentence does not stop crime from happening in the USA. All offenders know they have more rights than the innocent. They keep getting release. We are not hard are the bad guys...guess what? they we do it again.

 IN the USA is cost the average of about $32,000 a year to house them. The cost will keep on rising. Over 70 percent of crime is from repeat offenders. They know the sentence does not mean a thing with good behavior and over crowding.

    The death penalty is not enforce or use right away and they stay in jails for years and years. So little is ever sent to die.

 Only in modern times do we have prisons. If we get rid of the most of the bad guys (death penalty) less crime will be around. At least 70 percent of the prisoners will not be able to get back into society because of there life style and not willing to change forever. It is easlier to be bad than good.

 Bad guys want the easy way and not willing to work,study and improve themselves to get better than they are now. Today you can see how easy to be out of jail. The other month (Hawaii) a lady bookeeper stole over $900,000 from her company-the sentence 1 year in jail. What does this tell other embezzlers? - Short sentence if caught. Over 40,000 people in Hawaii goes to Las Vegas a month, many with bad gambling habits.

 What will work?........One way is to eliminate the repeat offenders permanently. Today the laws are not working to stop crime?.....Just my thoughts and may not be use for other things.....Aloha


----------

