For those opposed to the death penalty

[Shake]

Seriously.

Do you have another option which wouldn't be so costly to society?

What I mean is, given that some criminals are deemed so dangerous or are simply incapable of being rehabilitated, reasons for having the d.p. IMHO, why should the state, and thereby the populace through its taxes, be forced to support this person indefinitely until their natural demise (or killing by another inmate)? What about a permanent exile a la No Escape? For those unfamiliar with the film (starring Ray Liotta), criminals of this nature are banished to a remote island from which there is no escape. Now, in the film there is a lot of monitoring going on, which is costly. My idea is that if you tatooed or branded these criminals so that if they should ever show up in civilization again, you'd know it. Also, the cost of fingerprinting, tatooing, getting DNA samples, and transporting them to said island would have to be much less than keeping them alive, with 3 squares a day.

To those who'd say this is cruel and unusual, I'd just say that their crimes have demonstrated that they have chosen to totally defy civilized society and have therefore forfeited all rights. The burden to their families would be a deterrent as something they should have considered beforehand.

A bit extreme? Perhaps. I'm just curious if anyone else has some other practical ideas for ways to avert the death penalty.

[Yangja Isuko]

hell, i'd probably kill someone just to be exiled from this insane human species. woohoo.

ofcourse they'd have to be provided with significant technology in order to feed and sustain themselves. possibly having a few luxuries aswell. but then the rabid pro-deathwingers will whine again.

[Nowhere357]

IMHO, why should the state, and thereby the populace through its taxes, be forced to support this person indefinitely until their natural demise (or killing by another inmate)?
Also, the cost of fingerprinting, tatooing, getting DNA samples, and transporting them to said island would have to be much less than keeping them alive, with 3 squares a day.

Why should our morality be based on dollars?

Anyway, I think we are advanced enough to keep killers safely (for society) in a cell.

More important to me is the need to reform our prison system. Our current system is a shame on America.

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Why should our morality be based on dollars?

Anyway, I think we are advanced enough to keep killers safely (for society) in a cell.

More important to me is the need to reform our prison system. Our current system is a shame on America.

Why should I, Joe Taxpayer, have to pay to help feed, clothe, clean, house, etc, a serial rapist when I have trouble some months doing those things for myself? Is that the message we want to send - 'commit a horrible crime, get a free ride'? Some of them are even abusing the system - getting us to pay for their education (when some of us can't even afford to put our OWN CHILDREN through college), multiple name changes, or even a sex change! This is the way things should be? I don't think there is just a need for reform - I think we need tougher sentencing for the really violent crimes, and federally mandated death penalties for the worst.

[themistocles]

I love Thomas Sowell's line that "No doubt promises and theories are cheaper than walls and bars."

[Nowhere357]

Donnmathan
Why should I, Joe Taxpayer, have to pay to help feed, clothe, clean, house, etc, a serial rapist when I have trouble some months doing those things for myself? Is that the message we want to send - 'commit a horrible crime, get a free ride'?
Because you are Joe Taxpayer. The existence of poverty is a seperate issue.

And there is no "free ride" in lifetime incarceration. Many people would rather die than spend their life in a cell.

Some of them are even abusing the system - getting us to pay for their education (when some of us can't even afford to put our OWN CHILDREN through college), multiple name changes, or even a sex change! This is the way things should be?
No. Hence my call for prison reform. That, and non-violent people locked up with predators, and non-crimes leading to prison sentences, and lack of rehabilitation.

I think we need tougher sentencing for the really violent crimes, and federally mandated death penalties for the worst.
Our sentencing structures need reformed. As for the death penalty, I prefer to join the advanced nations in outlawing the execution of our citizens. Justice should not be about vengeance.

[Mageth]

Are you sure death penalty/execution is more cost-effective than incarceration for life?

From here (http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/dp/deathpenalty.html):

The relative costs of execution and life imprisonment without parole:
North Carolina: The death penalty costs $2.16 million more per execution than the cost of a non-death penalty murder case with life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993)
Texas: a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)
California: In Los Angeles County, an average death penalty case costs $2,087,926, vs. $1,448,935 for life imprisonment without possibility of parole

There's more information on the cost of death penalties vs. incarceration in the U.S. here (http://www.kscadp.org/kansas_facts.htm) and here (http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/just/death/issues.html#cost).

[Ovazor]

Originally posted by Shake
Seriously.

Do you have another option which wouldn't be so costly to society?


It is outright barbaric to even suggest that society should have the rigth to kill somebody because that somebody turns out to cost too much, regardless of what he has done. Whether losing life would be appropriate penalty to some crime is another question (IMO, never), but the question is about the crime itself.


What I mean is, given that some criminals are deemed so dangerous or are simply incapable of being rehabilitated, reasons for having the d.p.

I think that you have got the reasons for having death penalty wrong. Capital punishment does not exist because some people cannot be rehabilitated, but because it is thought that some crimes require such punsihment, no matter how small the risk of recividism is.


What about a permanent exile a la No Escape? For those unfamiliar with the film (starring Ray Liotta), criminals of this nature are banished to a remote island from which there is no escape.


What would keep the inmates alive on that island? How would you prevent them forming a society based on violence, where the top dogs would live quite comfortably? For many it would be a death sentence.


Now, in the film there is a lot of monitoring going on, which is costly. My idea is that if you tatooed or branded these criminals so that if they should ever show up in civilization again, you'd know it.

Wouldn't work. First, if there isn't close monitoring, those escaping (and if ou are the top dog on an unmonitored island, why not build a sailboat and cross the ocean) would get into some country, and there wouldn't be any guarantee that that other country would agree to return them to the island. The countries near the island would have to patrol the area themselves!

Also, the cost of fingerprinting, tatooing, getting DNA samples, and transporting them to said island would have to be much less than keeping them alive, with 3 squares a day.


To those who'd say this is cruel and unusual, I'd just say that their crimes have demonstrated that they have chosen to totally defy civilized society and have therefore forfeited all rights.


You cannot forfeit human rights, they belong to you simply because you are a human being. Otherwise, why not just enslave them? (NO I'm not advocating slavery).


The burden to their families would be a deterrent as something they should have considered beforehand.

Umm...what burden?

Besides, first you talked about persons who were too expensive to be kept alive. Now you are


A bit extreme? Perhaps. I'm just curious if anyone else has some other practical ideas for ways to avert the death penalty. [/B]

If a society has a death penalty, it is because that society has made a concious decision to not to be a civilized society. Death penalty is by no means required for a state to function, so there's no need to "avert" it. To abolish it is just a political decision to make. Implementing such decision means only stopping the killings.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Shake
Seriously.

Do you have another option which wouldn't be so costly to society?Maybe: Lifetime imprisonment, or rehabilitation. It's unclear whether execution is monetarily cheaper than either (as Mageth points out) -- and that's before we even consider other kinds of costs.
What I mean is, given that some criminals are deemed so dangerous or are simply incapable of being rehabilitated, reasons for having the d.p. Are you under the impression that most or even very many of those convicted of capital offenses are found to be "incapable of being rehabilitated"? In states with the death penalty, the question is rarely thought to be germane.IMHO, why should the state, and thereby the populace through its taxes, be forced to support this person indefinitely until their natural demise (or killing by another inmate)? That's not an O, H or otherwise. It's a rhetorical question.

I'm not (just) being pedantic; I wonder what your opinion is here, and what reasoning supports it, in your view.What about a permanent exile... to a remote island from which there is no escape. [T]he cost of fingerprinting, tatooing, getting DNA samples, and transporting them to said island would have to be much less than keeping them alive, with 3 squares a day.

To those who'd say this is cruel and unusual, I'd just say that their crimes have demonstrated that they have chosen to totally defy civilized society and have therefore forfeited all rights. Well, which is it? Are their lives legally forfeit in light of their crimes -- in which case it's hard to see why starvation on an island is morally superior to a bullet in the back of the neck -- or are you canvassing more humane punishments, in which case the cruelty of your suggestion is something of a problem?
I'm just curious if anyone else has some other practical ideas for ways to avert the death penalty. Practical factors comprise the best reasons to eliminate capital punishment.

The extremity and irreversibility of the measure, especially in a system in which judges and prosecutors are elected, is a powerful motivation for systemic cover-ups and resistance to rethinking cases. It sounds sick, but the fact is that at least many people would rather cover things up than be caught making the kind of mistake that would have sent someone to be killed. That's a thoroughly practical reason to prefer anything else to institutional State killing of its citizens.

[Ovazor]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
Why should I, Joe Taxpayer, have to pay to help feed, clothe, clean, house, etc, a serial rapist when I have trouble some months doing those things for myself?


Why should the same Joe Taxpayer have to pay to help feed, clothe, clean, house, etc, an disabled orphan when he has trouble some months doing those things for himself? If you have and idea how society can finance these things without taxation, please, öet's hear it!


Is that the message we want to send - 'commit a horrible crime, get a free ride'?

No. The message that is sent is more likely about "commit a horrible crime, spend at least a very long time in a very strictly regimented place, where you have very little freedom or ability to make choices affecting your life, where you have to be afraid about your personal safety even if you are closely watched, among other people who have committed horrible crimes.

[pug846]

There’s no question that it is more costly to execute someone than to send him or her to prison for life. Given the finality of execution, states are constitutionally obligated to provide extra procedural protections for those accused of capital crimes. Additionally, a larger jury pool must be summoned to make up for the potential jurors who would be dismissed because they would not ever apply the death penalty. Whatever you might think of the death penalty, it’s not cheap. And it’s certainly not cheaper than putting someone in a cell for the rest of their lives.

[PaulPritchard]

Originally posted by Shake
Seriously.

Do you have another option which wouldn't be so costly to society?

What I mean is, given that some criminals are deemed so dangerous or are simply incapable of being rehabilitated, reasons for having the d.p. IMHO, why should the state, and thereby the populace through its taxes, be forced to support this person indefinitely until their natural demise (or killing by another inmate)? What about a permanent exile a la No Escape? For those unfamiliar with the film (starring Ray Liotta), criminals of this nature are banished to a remote island from which there is no escape. Now, in the film there is a lot of monitoring going on, which is costly. My idea is that if you tatooed or branded these criminals so that if they should ever show up in civilization again, you'd know it. Also, the cost of fingerprinting, tatooing, getting DNA samples, and transporting them to said island would have to be much less than keeping them alive, with 3 squares a day.

To those who'd say this is cruel and unusual, I'd just say that their crimes have demonstrated that they have chosen to totally defy civilized society and have therefore forfeited all rights. The burden to their families would be a deterrent as something they should have considered beforehand.

A bit extreme? Perhaps. I'm just curious if anyone else has some other practical ideas for ways to avert the death penalty.

I don't know if this answers your questions directly, but I disagree executing people for the following three reasons;

1. It's barbaric. I know it's an emotional response but I really don't see why we in the 21st century should still be relying on broze age punishments.

2. It's unsafe. The greater the crime, the more pressure the police and prosecuters are to catch and convict someone. Thus, crimes worthy of the death penalty are also the crimes most likely to see miscarriages of justice.

3. It's not a deterent. Contries with a death penalty don't have lower crime rates than countries without.

I'm willing to accept that some convicted criminals are beyond rehabilitation. Paying to keep these people incarcerated is one of the costs of living in a civilised society.

[xorbie]

The death penalty is absurd. I have said this on another thread, and I will repeat it here: what we need is (effectively) slavery. You murder someone, you get to do manua labor with all profits going straight to the victims family.

Anyone who is rich and goes to jail should have to live off of their own money before the state chips in anything, especially for more serious acts.

Legalize drugs, which will dramatically reduce the jailed population, and give taxpayers billions back.

Allow criminals, especially those who commit non-violent crimes to take classes at community college and to do other, similiar programs. There is an acting troupe that goes around the country putting on shows made purely of prison inmates, and it is pretty successful.

Double security (with the added money available from money saved on drugs, this should not be a problem - especially considering the security measures could probably be lessened to achieve double the current level of security) to eliminate the growing problem of STD's amongst jailed population which then spread when they get out.

That is all for now, but yeah the jail system needs serious reform.

[Farren]

I was about to post that everyone seems to have missed the obvious when I spotted this:

Originally posted by PaulPritchard
I don't know if this answers your questions directly, but I disagree executing people for the following three reasons;
...
2. It's unsafe. The greater the crime, the more pressure the
police and prosecuters are to catch and convict someone. Thus, crimes worthy of the death penalty are also the crimes most likely to see miscarriages of justice.
....


There, in a nutshell, is why I oppose the death penalty. Even if this was overcome I have a few others but this is enough.

Killing someone is the only irreversable penalty. To accept the dealth penalty requires faith that the justice system convicts only the guilty, or the belief that ther few innocents killed are worth the benefits to society.

I disagree with both positions.

[Philosoft]

I have another problem: the death penalty for capital murder is far out of proportion with the punishments for other crimes. Theft? Jail time, at most. DUI? Jail time, at most. Fraud? Jail time, at most. Battery? Jail time, at most. The only differences are in the quantities of time per sentence. Then, all of a sudden, we skip right over torture, public humiliation, forfeiture of assets, etc., to death for premeditated murder. I don't see even a hint of logical progression here. It seems we've totally rejected "eye for eye" justice save, somehow, for murder 1.

[themistocles]

Originally posted by PaulPritchard

1. It's barbaric. I know it's an emotional response but I really don't see why we in the 21st century should still be relying on broze age punishments.

Murderers are barbaric. By their actions, they have chosen to become the most worthless elements of society. And why should we devalue murder to the level of "a pretty bad crime"? How enlightened a society it must be to value innocent citizens as equal worth to a few years behind bars.


2. It's unsafe. The greater the crime, the more pressure the police and prosecuters are to catch and convict someone. Thus, crimes worthy of the death penalty are also the crimes most likely to see miscarriages of justice.

So that devalues the weight of the crime? Murder no longer is the worst crime, but just a real bad one, among many other sort of crimes? Perhaps this is an argument for a more thorough justice system, but its relation to the death penalty is classic muddying of the issue.


3. It's not a deterent. Contries with a death penalty don't have lower crime rates than countries without.[b]

I don't think deterrance should be the basis of law. But, then again, if the thought of sitting on an electric chair saved one life from being taken, you're enlightened society may have cost at least one innocent life for the sake of one very guilty one.

[b]
I'm willing to accept that some convicted criminals are beyond rehabilitation. Paying to keep these people incarcerated is one of the costs of living in a civilised society.

Agreed, and it is generally a fact that the higher the incarceration rate, the lower the crime rate, coincidentally.

[themistocles]

Originally posted by Philosoft
I have another problem: the death penalty for capital murder is far out of proportion with the punishments for other crimes. Theft? Jail time, at most. DUI? Jail time, at most. Fraud? Jail time, at most. Battery? Jail time, at most. The only differences are in the quantities of time per sentence. Then, all of a sudden, we skip right over torture, public humiliation, forfeiture of assets, etc., to death for premeditated murder. I don't see even a hint of logical progression here. It seems we've totally rejected "eye for eye" justice save, somehow, for murder 1.

Maybe it's the "murder is the worst crime ever" attitude of unenlightened barbaric states which value innocent citizens?

[pug846]

Originally posted by themistocles Agreed, and it is generally a fact that the higher the incarceration rate, the lower the crime rate, coincidentally. [/B]

Generally accepted fact amongst whom, precisely? And I guess this means that the United States should have one the lowest crime rates in the world...

The number of people in prison in the U.S. is quite frankly embarrassing.

[Hedwig]

Originally posted by themistocles




Agreed, and it is generally a fact that the higher the incarceration rate, the lower the crime rate, coincidentally.

Where did you get this fact?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by themistocles
Agreed, and it is generally a fact that the higher the incarceration rate, the lower the crime rate, coincidentally.
You'll have to back that claim up. Also, its easy to pad incarceration rates simply by, for example, making simple drug use a crime.

[reprise]

Court tosses out about 100 death sentences (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=5&u=/ap/20030903/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty)

My two primary objections to the death penalty are the imperfection of Western justice systems - I'd much rather a guilty person lives, incarcerated at my expense, than an innocent one is executed - and the inconsistency in its application.

[Shake]

Very nice, everyone! I'm glad this has gone pretty well so far, although some of you missed my point, which I'll address shortly.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Why should our morality be based on dollars?

Anyway, I think we are advanced enough to keep killers safely (for society) in a cell.

More important to me is the need to reform our prison system. Our current system is a shame on America. I'm not saying it should be based on dollars, but I think Joe Taxpayer might like a break. I'm very much in favor of major reforms to our prison system. You'll get no arguments from me there.

OK, here's where I clarify some things:
First, I've seen the numbers before and I am not arguing that lifetime incarceration is more expensive than killing (though that fact still boggles my mind a bit). I'm trying to see if there's any other options that are cheaper still than life in prison. It's harder to have them be productive or helpful to society at large. These are not the kind of criminals you want picking up litter along the highways!

xorbie says:
The death penalty is absurd. I have said this on another thread, and I will repeat it here: what we need is (effectively) slavery. You murder someone, you get to do manual labor with all profits going straight to the victims family.

Anyone who is rich and goes to jail should have to live off of their own money before the state chips in anything, especially for more serious acts.These are options that I would whole-heartedly support! Although with the rich being jailed, it shouldn't jeopardize the welfare of their family (if they have one). I'm not saying they shouldn't perhaps have to sacrifice a bit, but they shouldn't go without because of a family members' mistake.

What would keep the inmates alive on that island? How would you prevent them forming a society based on violence, where the top dogs would live quite comfortably? For many it would be a death sentence. Survival skills. If they don't have them, they don't survive. These are, hypothetically, people who can't function in normal society, so their loss to normal society is a plus. IMO, these people have forfeited their rights to live in normal society (as I said in the o.p.).

Again, let me point out that I don't mean to actually be arguing for the death penalty as it exists. The fact is that is does exist, and I'm asking what might be some other options. Also, maybe I wasn't clear: I'm thinking of something that would be still cheaper to the public than life imprisonment.

I realize the situation I presented was a bit far-fetched, and again, I realize the system needs major reform. I do not argue these points. The legal system has its flaws too. Don't think I don't recognize that either. DP opponents, your arguments have been well made, and your are making points with me, a dp supporter (in some cases). The level of my support for it has waned over the past few years.

Side note: today (9/3), Florida will execute a man who killed 2 people at an abortion clinic almost a decade ago. He has no remorse for his victims and says he was doing Gods work. The sick fucker had a big smile on at a recent press conference.

[brighid]

I am going to agree with those opposing the death penalty. A special thanks to Mageth for posting those statistics. One of the reasons the death penalty is so expensive is the cost to the state for appeals (which should not go away given the enormous miscarriage of justice we have seen through false convictions of innocent men.) An appelate case at the state level is astronomical. Most convicted felons facing the death penalty are poor and must be represented by the state. This isn't cheap. It isn't cheap to retain an attorney for the 10 plus years of an appeals process. Then we must add in the cost of the prosecution, expert witnesses, jurists, judges and correctional officers salaries, costs of transportation, etc. Trials can last months, even years and this all adds up to millions of dollars in tax payer money.

It is by far cheaper (millions cheaper PER INMATE) to simply house, feed, clothe and care for said criminal.

There is a much cheaper way to deal with crime and that is prevention. Prevention begins before birth with adequate prenatal care for all mothers, whether they are at risk or not. Equal education for all people regardless of race, sex, socioeconomic status, etc. Strong societal support networks for children and families, including family friendly employers and adequate, safe day care at reasonable and affordable costs. Safe and affordable housing where no child has to sleep on the floor in order to avoid getting shot while they sleep, or having to find ways to avoid and hide from gang bangers, drug dealers, and prostitutes on their way to and from school.

If we spend time and money on developing strong communities we won't have nearly as many problems with crime. We will save millions that are better spent on educating people and caring for those in crisis by simply placing community, family and education as our highest priority ... not vengenance, not the bottom line, not wealth, racial or gender superiority, but equality for all human people and a respect for the very dignity their humanity demands be paid them.

Every time a Head Start, after school, art, or athletic program is cut from our children's schools, every time a poor child must go without necessary medical attention, food, clothing, or a loving embrace, every time a single mother or father must chose between eating and maintaining a rickety roof over their families heads or spending quality time with their child(ren), every time a woman must stay in an abusive relationship while her children watch as their father or other intimate pummels their mother and later turn their rage on the children, and while the police and neighbors remains silent or incapable of helping a "domestic situation", every time a person cannot afford or get into a drug treatment center ... society loses and we create opportunity, after opportunity for a new criminal to emerge ... a needless waste of human potential that can be prevented.

Prevention is the key!

Brighid

[meritocrat]

The death penalty is unjust. There's nothing wrong in keeping a person in prison for their lifetime.

Some of them are even abusing the system - getting us to pay for their education (when some of us can't even afford to put our OWN CHILDREN through college), multiple name changes, or even a sex change! This is the way things should be? I don't think there is just a need for reform -

Who exactly receives this treatment?

[brighid]

Some of them are even abusing the system - getting us to pay for their education (when some of us can't even afford to put our OWN CHILDREN through college), multiple name changes, or even a sex change! This is the way things should be? I don't think there is just a need for reform -

It is not the incarcerated's fault that education is so expensive for our children. Blame that on tax cuts and a lack of importance placed on education in general. There will always be those who abuse the system, any system. However, the educational "fix" that comes while in prison should have been afforded in childhood. Education is a proven crime deterant/rehabilitator. If one of the reasons an individual resorted to crime what an impovershed existence (lack of job skills, education, etc.) it makes sense to educate said individual in an attempt to provide the opportunity to make a positive contribution to society. We should not simply jail people for a crime without at least attempting to address WHY they were there, and help prevent future criminal behavior. That money spent on educating a convicted felon is well spent in most cases.

The crime is that all people do not have the same opportunities to education, not that some felons are able to get an education while in prison. Let us focus our attention where is should be and where it will do the most good - prevention and rehabilitation whenever possible. I would much rather see an ex-con come out with an education so he can at least have some opportunity to get on the straight and narrow then simply release an ex-con who is now worse off then before he entered the "justice" system.

Brighid

edited to add: http://www.citybeat.com/2002-04-04/statehouse.shtml

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by Mageth
Are you sure death penalty/execution is more cost-effective than incarceration for life?


Point made and taken. Part of my protest was based on the notion that the costs ran the other way around.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
No. Hence my call for prison reform. That, and non-violent people locked up with predators, and non-crimes leading to prison sentences, and lack of rehabilitation.


True, and point taken.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Our sentencing structures need reformed. As for the death penalty, I prefer to join the advanced nations in outlawing the execution of our citizens. Justice should not be about vengeance.

I guess our viewpoints differ here - I do not regard the death penalty as vengeance, or barbaric (given as the opposite of advanced). I see it more as the admission that those executed have a disease for which we have no cure but which makes them dangerous to society-at-large, and it would be cruel and barbaric to shut them away in a little room until they die. Not unlike a dog with rabies; it isn't that you think the dog deserves to die, but anything else would be even more cruel.

Originally posted by Ovazor
Why should the same Joe Taxpayer have to pay to help feed, clothe, clean, house, etc, an disabled orphan when he has trouble some months doing those things for himself?

There is a huge difference between helping to care for an orphan and helping to care for a mass-murderer: one can live within society, the other has proven quite clearly that he cannot! A charitable person pays to house a stray dog, but not one who is rabid.

Now, given the staements I have made above, I am certain that someone will tell me that inmates can be rehabilitated. Fine, I am certain that some can, if their crimes were minor enough or there were odd circumstances (the brainwashing of the Manson girls, for example). For the rest, however, I think that statistics are needed to support such a claim, as I can't think of a single serial killer or serial rapist I have heard of being rehabilitated.

By the way, I want to apologize if that first post came off a bit nasty in tone - I had a rough day, but didn't mean for it to sneak it's way into my posts.

[xorbie]

What about unprivtizing the prison system? As far as I know, it is privatized, and the prison industry lobbys religiously against repealing drug laws, etc.

This means that the people who run prisons actually want more people in the prisons, it is how they make money. This actually explains a lot.

And I agree with Brighid, prevention is key. Like I said, legalize drugs. The money saved would help almost double our education, without increasing taxes whatsoever. It would also help lower crime, especially in inner-city areas (I think drugs are involved in 70% of all street crimes). Is it really all that hard?

Also, I think that there is a legitimate beef that poor people have with people in prison receiving the best medicare benefits possible. Heinous murderers on death row get better medical treatment than hardworking, honest blue collar citizens. This is a system that needs to be changed.

The time for reform is NOW!!!!!! *battle cry*

And not just for jail either, I'm talking welfare, medicare, medicaid, drug laws, education and a whole lot more. Write your congressman. Get Aschroft, Bush and the possy out, and let's do this thing!!!!! *battle cry*

[Ovazor]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
I do not regard the death penalty as vengeance, or barbaric (given as the opposite of advanced). I see it more as the admission that those executed have a disease for which we have no cure but which makes them dangerous to society-at-large, and it would be cruel and barbaric to shut them away in a little room until they die.


But that (locking them into a little room until they die) is more or less what is done to people suffring from certain mental disorders, regardless what they have done wrong if anything! Are you suggesting it would be more merciful to kill them, too upon diagnosis? If not, why do certain kind of "sick"need to be killed but not others?


Not unlike a dog with rabies; it isn't that you think the dog deserves to die, but anything else would be even more cruel.

Human beings are not dogs.


There is a huge difference between helping to care for an orphan and helping to care for a mass-murderer: one can live within society, the other has proven quite clearly that he cannot! A charitable person pays to house a stray dog, but not one who is rabid.


Charity is when person decides to help, not when he has no choice. State takes custody, state has to support, it's that simple.


Now, given the staements I have made above, I am certain that someone will tell me that inmates can be rehabilitated. Fine, I am certain that some can, if their crimes were minor enough or there were odd circumstances (the brainwashing of the Manson girls, for example). For the rest, however, I think that statistics are needed to support such a claim, as I can't think of a single serial killer or serial rapist I have heard of being rehabilitated.

Certainly not when they are executed or locked away for life. There has been many genuine changes in people, especially in cases where the crimes were committed under the influence of alcohol or other vile dangerous chemical. People are not punished for what they might do, but what they have done.

Besides, you know that there are already hundreds of murdrers and rapists running around who were never caught, and who still have led even decades normal life after their crime. They have been perfectly able to live in the society for all that time. Still I think they have earned their punishment as surely as those who were cought.

Also, if you regard those executed having incurable illness (a view I do not share), you seem to be pretty pessimistic about the prospects of deveoping the cure in some future date.

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
Why should I, Joe Taxpayer, have to pay to help feed, clothe, clean, house, etc, a serial rapist when I have trouble some months doing those things for myself? Is that the message we want to send - 'commit a horrible crime, get a free ride'? Some of them are even abusing the system - getting us to pay for their education (when some of us can't even afford to put our OWN CHILDREN through college), multiple name changes, or even a sex change! This is the way things should be? I don't think there is just a need for reform - I think we need tougher sentencing for the really violent crimes, and federally mandated death penalties for the worst.

There are people who break the law based on a cold, calculated, rational cost-benefit analysis, but you are far more likely to find those people in corporate boardrooms pilfering people's pensions than you are robbing convenience stores or murdering people.

Like it or not, in any large society, there will be people who have more difficulty fitting in and conforming to the rules than others. This problem is compounded by the fact that all of the societies we live in are inegalitarian: some people get a more or less free ride through life while others are condemned by their status to a life of denial and poverty. Joe Taxpayer knows that a society that provides inadequate social justice, education, and fulfilment of basic needs will produce angry, marginalized, and uneducated people who either feel justified in breaking the rules (because they recognize that rules are designed to benefit others at their expense) or because they just don't know any other way. If Joe Taxpayer refuses to pay the up front cost of preventing crime (by providing everyone with sufficient education, health care, the ability to readily find employment and earn a wage capable of comfortably supporting a family, and by identifying people prone to violence and working to help them deal with their tendencies in non-destructive ways) then he has no cause to complain when he is called upon to pay the much higher cost of dealing with what is largely a preventable problem.

I would wager that the vast majority of people in prison were accorded a smaller than average amount of society's benefits and that the majority of people complaining about the cost of housing people in overcrowded, violent, destructive prisons have been accorded a larger than average amount. Wanting to have a larger slice of the pie and not wanting to share with others is not a moral justification for incarcerating people, much less killing them.

People who call for more ever-harsher penalties are missing an important point: for some people, there is so little benefit in obeying the law that any chance for a better life through crime is worth risking even the most draconian penalties. Others lack the ability, for various reasons, to weigh and appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions, and will act with a short-term mindset regardless of the brutal penalties that may come later. Both of these conditions can be mitigated, but not through harsher penalties.

[Donnmathan]

Judging by that, I guess I'm going to have to quietly disagree on this one - I do not hold my beliefs so strongly that I am not willing to be over-ruled by the majority. Several of you have pointed out that execution is more expensive than life in prison, a fact which I am surprised at, but am willing to concede. My answer to the contention Ovazor raised that paying for prisons is no different than paying for orphans, and no more voluntary, is the admittedly irrational statement, "yah, but I believe in charity!" When I get that bad, I know it is time to bow out.

Fishbulb, your post makes sense, but doesn't express my reasons for objecting, which are at once far less selfish and far more imorral, even by my own code: I don't think that the chance should be taken that they will get out and do it again. Like I said, though, I am more than willing to be over-ruled by the majority on this issue.

[Bootstoots]

I am opposed to the death penalty.

I do not see the reason, in any case, to strap somebody to a table, chair, post, etc. and proceed to kill them. There are much less barbaric ways to deal with criminals, no matter how bad the criminal is. A true life sentence without possibility of parole in solitary confinement would protect all of society from dangerous criminals and would be even worse than the death penalty, IMO. Is there any good reason that we should kill someone when life in solitary confinement without possibility of parole would be much worse and protect society just as much, other than the barbaric human instinct for revenge?

As far as the cost issue, as noted above, it costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.

BTW, this is my first post here. It looks like a great site.

[xorbie]

Welcome Bootstoots to II. Not much else, really, as I think the overwhelming majority here is against death penalty. No word yet on manual labor.

[reprise]

Just to take this discussion of on a tangent for a moment, in the absence of the death penalty, how many of those who've posted to this thread would support the state making available to those prisoners whose maximum penalty would then be "life without parole" the means to kill themselves reasonably quickly and painlessly at any time during their sentence?

I would support that.

[tronvillain]

I am opposed to the death penalty (it is not really an issue in Canada since we don't have it anywhere), but if we could be if we could be sure that a person was guilty I would definitely consider if rehabilitation was unlikely and it did not cost more than imprisonment.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by reprise
... how many of those who've posted to this thread would support the state making available to those prisoners whose maximum penalty would then be "life without parole" the means to kill themselves reasonably quickly and painlessly at any time during their sentence?
I guess they should have the same right to die that the rest of us should have.

How about the option of gladiator death matches? Many millions could be raised on each fight, restitution for victims and family. :)

[Hedwig]

I'm against the death penalty for all the reasons others have done such a good job listing. I wanted to chime in earlier but everyone else was doing a very thorough job of making the case much better than I could. I've been a vocal abolitionist for a couple of years now. I 100% agree with what brighid said about improving communities and educational opportunities for everyone. That would be a huge step in the right direction.

[Gothic_J]

Originally posted by Shake
Seriously.

Do you have another option which wouldn't be so costly to society?

What I mean is, given that some criminals are deemed so dangerous or are simply incapable of being rehabilitated, reasons for having the d.p. IMHO, why should the state, and thereby the populace through its taxes, be forced to support this person indefinitely until their natural demise (or killing by another inmate)? What about a permanent exile a la No Escape? For those unfamiliar with the film (starring Ray Liotta), criminals of this nature are banished to a remote island from which there is no escape. Now, in the film there is a lot of monitoring going on, which is costly. My idea is that if you tatooed or branded these criminals so that if they should ever show up in civilization again, you'd know it. Also, the cost of fingerprinting, tatooing, getting DNA samples, and transporting them to said island would have to be much less than keeping them alive, with 3 squares a day.

To those who'd say this is cruel and unusual, I'd just say that their crimes have demonstrated that they have chosen to totally defy civilized society and have therefore forfeited all rights. The burden to their families would be a deterrent as something they should have considered beforehand.

A bit extreme? Perhaps. I'm just curious if anyone else has some other practical ideas for ways to avert the death penalty.

my preference would be change the culture. change the mind, change the action. once you get a convict mentality, you cant do much. otoh, if you start them with fuzzy humaneness, it works out better.

[Shake]

Originally posted by Gothic_J
my preference would be change the culture. change the mind, change the action. once you get a convict mentality, you cant do much. otoh, if you start them with fuzzy humaneness, it works out better. Ideally, that's what I'd like too.

Originally posted by lots of youse
I am opposed to the death penalty ... For the last time, I know! I addressed this thread to you! The strength of my support for it has changed from very strongly for, to a much milder support level. Your arguments have not gone unheard, but it's not really the point of this thread. My opposition to it, is merely on the application of it, which is more a condemnation of the legal system which, every once in a while, allows innocents to be punished.

I was just brainstorming, trying to figure out another way to handle the (admittedly) very few who are so dangerous to society, that mere life imprisonment seems too good. The ones who have absolutely no remorse for their actions and are not even willing to be rehabilitated (assuming the system really can rehabilitate them). The main goal of a penal system should, IMHO, be to have ZERO repeat offenders. But as you said, Gothic, an even better society would have no need for the prisons in the first place.

I for one, like to see convicts cleaning up the litter along our highways (even though littering itself is a crime in most places) and doing other such things to repay society. Aren't there other things we could have them doing too?

I feel myself starting to wander off-topic, so back to the discussion!

[xorbie]

Precisely. Other things we could have them do. Also, I'm not sure how this would fly, but for those who do commit seriously bad crimes, how about we auction off their organs post-mortum (sp?) and give all proceeds to the family?

Yeah... I'm running out of ideas.

[brighid]

Precisely. Other things we could have them do. Also, I'm not sure how this would fly, but for those who do commit seriously bad crimes, how about we auction off their organs post-mortum (sp?) and give all proceeds to the family?

Unless they died of natural causes ... I don't think those killed either by gas chamber, electric chair, or lethal injection will have viable organs to donate ;)

I think some direct restitution to the victims, perhaps under very close supervision such as shoveling their snow, picking up their dogs poop, building an addition onto their home, or having to do charity work with victims and their families who have suffered from similar crimes ... make them have to face those people, see, feel and hear the anger, anquish and despair they have caused, and have to work every single day to make ammends would be a deterant. How many people would possibly think twice if they knew they had to face their victim and/or their families every day for 5 or more years ... or other victims?

The death penalty is obviously not a deterant and I think of the deterants smaller towns and societies have is that a criminal can't have anonymity, and must eventually face the humiliation of being shunned and shamed by that society (at least as it applies to random crime and perhaps even crime committed by intimates because of the secrecy involved.)

I don't think they should be branded for life and once their time is served they should be given a second chance (perhaps not third, fourth and fifth chances ...) to actually make rehabilitation a better alternative.

If you are a felon, you know that once you get out you will always be viewed this way. It's a stigma you can't get out from under and it makes it alot easier to justify committing other crimes. At least I think this should be the case for non-violent felonies (in most cases.)

Brighid

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by brighid
Unless they died of natural causes ... I don't think those killed either by gas chamber, electric chair, or lethal injection will have viable organs to donate ;)

Besides which, forced organ donation and the commercial sale of organs sounds like an excellent way to combine two bad ideas into one very bad idea. But the Chinese government seems to disagree with me on this point.

I think some direct restitution to the victims, perhaps under very close supervision such as shoveling their snow, picking up their dogs poop, building an addition onto their home, or having to do charity work with victims and their families who have suffered from similar crimes ... make them have to face those people, see, feel and hear the anger, anquish and despair they have caused, and have to work every single day to make ammends would be a deterant. How many people would possibly think twice if they knew they had to face their victim and/or their families every day for 5 or more years ... or other victims?

Not the people who commit crimes in the heat of the moment without considering the consequences. Not the people who are sociopaths and don't really care what other people feel or think of them. Not the people who think that they are tough enough to do five or ten years in an over-crowded, ultra-violent prison. Rational, well-adjusted people generally do not commit violent crimes. There are exceptions in the case of organized crime, professional assassins, and the like, but in most cases, violence is not an effective strategy for personal gain.

Ignoring the fact that this arrangement would be at least as unpleasant for the victim as the offender, it really doesn't work. Making restitution is viable in the case of someone who genuinely regrets their actions and wants to make restitution, but not when it is forced. Moreover, the infliction of humiliation and emotional trauma are not really restitution; it is just an additional form of punishment through psychological and emotional torture.

By all accounts, prison is a horrible, dehumanizing place. Free basic cable does not really seem to make up for the confinement, boredom, fear, anxiety, sexual assault, disease, and murder that goes on. If long sentences in high-security prisons in cramped conditions with the most violent elements of society under inadequate supervision doesn't deter or reform, it is hard to see how even harsher forms of torture or punishment are going to have the desired effect. Focusing on retribution and restitution has been a dead end that has failed to make anything better. We need a more practical approach that focuses on prevention and rehabilitation. In cases where both of these fail, containment is the fallback. (I.e., people who cannot be rehabilitated and pose a significant risk for further violence should be confined. Not in order to punish them, but in order to protect the rest of the community from them.) I cannot see any circumstances under which dehumanizing someone will have the effect of making them better fit into society.

Restitution is a good idea where property crime is involved and where the individual is repentent, but it makes no sense for violent crime. If we treated violent crime as a public health and safety issue rather than a moral one, I think we'd all end up safer and happier.

[Shake]

Originally posted by brighid
Unless they died of natural causes ... I don't think those killed either by gas chamber, electric chair, or lethal injection will have viable organs to donate ;) This is why I'd advocate going back to public hangings ... reusable organs, plus perhaps more of a deterrent.

I think some direct restitution to the victims, perhaps under very close supervision such as shoveling their snow, picking up their dogs poop, building an addition onto their home, or having to do charity work with victims and their families who have suffered from similar crimes ... make them have to face those people, see, feel and hear the anger, anquish and despair they have caused, and have to work every single day to make ammends would be a deterant. How many people would possibly think twice if they knew they had to face their victim and/or their families every day for 5 or more years ... or other victims? Now, these are some good ideas here. This is the sort of thing I was hoping to see. You make some good points, Brig.

[yelyos]

The problem is, a public hanging would wreak incredible emotional damage on the family of the accused, and what if the accused was innocent? There are many innocents on death row.

We don't need more violence and death on television. Wouldn't that just encourage people to kill more?

I think that the perfect way for the government to increase the murder rate is to glorify killing.

[Whispers]

Originally posted by brighid
I am going to agree with those opposing the death penalty. A special thanks to Mageth for posting those statistics. One of the reasons the death penalty is so expensive is the cost to the state for appeals (which should not go away given the enormous miscarriage of justice we have seen through false convictions of innocent men.) An appelate case at the state level is astronomical. Most convicted felons facing the death penalty are poor and must be represented by the state. This isn't cheap. It isn't cheap to retain an attorney for the 10 plus years of an appeals process. Then we must add in the cost of the prosecution, expert witnesses, jurists, judges and correctional officers salaries, costs of transportation, etc. Trials can last months, even years and this all adds up to millions of dollars in tax payer money.

It is by far cheaper (millions cheaper PER INMATE) to simply house, feed, clothe and care for said criminal.

There is a much cheaper way to deal with crime and that is prevention. Prevention begins before birth with adequate prenatal care for all mothers, whether they are at risk or not. Equal education for all people regardless of race, sex, socioeconomic status, etc. Strong societal support networks for children and families, including family friendly employers and adequate, safe day care at reasonable and affordable costs. Safe and affordable housing where no child has to sleep on the floor in order to avoid getting shot while they sleep, or having to find ways to avoid and hide from gang bangers, drug dealers, and prostitutes on their way to and from school.

If we spend time and money on developing strong communities we won't have nearly as many problems with crime. We will save millions that are better spent on educating people and caring for those in crisis by simply placing community, family and education as our highest priority ... not vengenance, not the bottom line, not wealth, racial or gender superiority, but equality for all human people and a respect for the very dignity their humanity demands be paid them.

Every time a Head Start, after school, art, or athletic program is cut from our children's schools, every time a poor child must go without necessary medical attention, food, clothing, or a loving embrace, every time a single mother or father must chose between eating and maintaining a rickety roof over their families heads or spending quality time with their child(ren), every time a woman must stay in an abusive relationship while her children watch as their father or other intimate pummels their mother and later turn their rage on the children, and while the police and neighbors remains silent or incapable of helping a "domestic situation", every time a person cannot afford or get into a drug treatment center ... society loses and we create opportunity, after opportunity for a new criminal to emerge ... a needless waste of human potential that can be prevented.

Prevention is the key!

Brighid

Awesome post. I like :)

[brighid]

This is why I'd advocate going back to public hangings ... reusable organs, plus perhaps more of a deterrent.

I don't think public hangings would be much of a deterrent for those that need the deterrent. If anything I think it may spark even more resentment. I have yet to see where public executions, or state run executions actually are a deterrent. It might be a deterrent to you and I, but people in desperate situations don't always think rationally. Especially if their minds and bodies have already been terribly altered by drugs, alcohol and abuse. This doesn't excuse criminal behavior, but to approach the mind of a criminal who is capable of a crime that carries the death penalty as you would approach the average persons mind is to miss the point entirely.

I am also strongly opposed to the idea that we would use criminals as organ harvesters. The foreseeable abuse in such a system is so great that it makes such as possibility unconscionable. It also assumes that a death penalty convict has lead a lifestyle suitable to viable organ donation. I sincerely doubt this is the case for most, and in the many cases of innocent men being falsely convicted I think a great miscarriage of justice takes place when they are killed not only for vengence, but also for their organs.

I do feel that there are some, but very few, criminals deserving of the death penalty.

Brighid

[Kvalhion]

Prison should be a place where people are given the opportunity to repay society for a transgression against it. I don't think all prisoners should be made to be on a chain gang, but they should be given the choice to learn a particular trade. Not just license plate making, but something that would be valuable on the outside, such as a mechanic, construction, computers, etc. While in prison and learning/practicing their trade, the profits made would go towards repaying the state for the costs of being in prison. If they are not serving a life sentence then they would have the opportunity to have a decent job on the outside and be given the chance to make it on their own. If they are serving a life sentence, then the proceeds still go to the state/their family/victims family. They are still in prison but they spend the rest of their lives making up for what put them there.

I don't have much sympathy for convicted killers who have directly ended the lives of others through their actions. Their victims will never get the chance for parole or to continue their lives in any fashion. Even so, in reality, the death penalty is unnecessary, is not a deterrant, and is not perfect. Thus, I do not support it.

I agree that there needs to be major reform. The basic purpose of prisons need to be rediscovered and changed. Hopefully some of these changes will come about soon.

[Shake]

Nice post, Kvalhion!

I agree that having convicts sitting a cell all day, watching cable TV and working out is not repaying their debt to society. From what I understand, some actually enjoy the chain gang, since they get out and are away from the prison for a while. It probably makes them feel a little more normal, and also gain some appreciation for the situation they're in. I agree, this is what the prisons should do: work towards turning convicts into people who are able to reenter society with something to offer and become productive citizens again.

Another problem with reform is that the whole program is not limited to the penal system. It would take some time for outside employers to build up a level of trust of truly rehabilitated ex-cons. It's not fair, but there's a trust issue involved, and you can't really blame an employer for being a bit anxious about hiring an ex-con onto their staff.

[Jamie_L]

I am not opposed to execution in theory. I have never had any moral objection to executing people guilty of certain crimes.

However, in practice, I am totally opposed to the death penalty.

We live in an imperfect world, and the justice system is a function of imperfect human beings. It will never be without error. Therefore, so long as the death penalty exists, innocent people will be put to death.

On examining the death penalty, there seem to be few if any benefits to it when compared with life in prison without parole. What few benefits there are seem to be far outweighed by the risk of executing innocent citizens. In a country that prizes the rights of law-abiding citizens above almost all else, executing innocents is completely unacceptable unless it offers significant benefits. The death penalty simply does not have sufficient benefits to outweigh its costs.

Are there cheaper solutions to incarceration for life? I don't think so. Not solutions that are humane. Again, we must consider that innocents will get life in prison without parole. They should not be subjected to horrible torture just because we feel the guilty deserve it. Again, the benefits do not appear to outweigh the costs. Even labor camps are often undesirable because it steals money from the private sector and puts low-income workers in competition with free prison labor. No, it seems imprisonment is the cheapest option.

Why should the taxpayers have to pay to keep these people alive? Because we are also paying to keep our own children alive. We are paying to prevent innocent people from being robbed of their existence simply because they were unfortunate enough to get mistakenly convicted. Would any of us trade our children, or lovers, our parents to save the tax payers some money? Somehow this seems less tragic when we think of it in terms of the general public, and in terms of percentages. But individual people lose their lives, and that is unacceptable when the alternative provides us with no significant benefit.

There are better ways to save money in the penal system. Decriminalizing behaviors that have little-to-no impact on society, such as drug use, could pay for any increased cost from increased life without parole sentences. But that's a whole other thread.

Jamie