why not death penalty?

[Busyman]

Depending on the age of the prisoner (younger will probably live longer) It is a very close race when it comes to costs. Financially life may be the cheaper option.

Add up all the appeal costs and care of the condemned up to the disposal of the body and I would think that it could be about the same as life without parole.....
Oh and I think the system needs the appeals to remove mistakes...but then I think that beyond reasonable doubt is not good enough to hand out death in the first place.

The problem is those appeals exist with lifers as well.

Prisoners need to work in a rock quary and really do hard labor like they used to.

Prison isn't a deterrent because it has become more lax.
Even the death penalty itself is lax.
If you are going to kill the person, use a firing squad or a guillotine.

Why is even the mode of commission supposed to be humane when the penalty itself is not?

In the wacky words of wanker...."Do feck all!!!"

[fkdup74]

Depending on the age of the prisoner (younger will probably live longer) It is a very close race when it comes to costs. Financially life may be the cheaper option.

Add up all the appeal costs and care of the condemned up to the disposal of the body and I would think that it could be about the same as life without parole.....

that's why the system needs some tweaking,
and sentences should be carried out expeditiously

http://cpr.ca.gov/report/indrpt/corr/report/7.htm
http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter.html
http://www.kslegislature.org/postaud...rm/04pa03a.pdf (PDF file)

the costs of a death penalty (trial) far outweigh a non-death penalty case
but the actual carrying out of the sentence, death penalties are half the cost
(see the table on page 13 of the PDF link)
and thats in Kansas, its no doubt more expensive here in California,
in all aspects, death and non-death cases

the cost of housing an inmate is about 28,000 USD per year
so, $560-840k over the 20-30 yrs it would take to actually carry out the sentence
California houses 604 condemned inmates (as per a 2004 study)
thats $16.9 million per year, just in housing costs, over 30 years thats $507 million
when adding in costs of appeals trials alone, it no doubt runs into the billions
just California alone, just for condemned inmates
we could use that money to educate children,
fund more community programs, so they have places to go, things to do,
instead of committing crimes

[Biggles]

There is only one true deterrant and that is certainty of detection. Once detected the decision of what is to be done with the offender is purely up to the perceived needs of the society in which the offence occurred.

In those societies where there is a considerable degree of crime and where the detection rate is depressingly low there is an understandable desire to exact revenge and set an example. However, it is arguable if there is any really significant impact on crime rates.

My own view is that society gains little from aping the tactics of the killers and that simply placing them where they can harm no one else is the best course of action. It is hardly a soft option considering the lengths that criminals will go to avoid detection in the UK. Consequently, I think the decision is the correct one and sets an interesting precedent for future cases.

I do believe, however, that pathological killers should be detained for as long as they are active enough to present a threat to others.

[vidcc]

I think it's beyond all reasonable doubt, not just beyond reasonable doubt.

my point is that it should be without a doubt... any doubt whatsoever and death should be ruled out.

@ FK

and sentences should be carried out expeditiously

I couldn't disagree more. We have had cases recently where people on death row (one was there for 20 years) have been released altogether because they have been proven innocent. Rush to carry out sentence and innocent lives WILL be taken and that is NOT acceptable.
Delayed execution of a guilty person is better than rushed execution of an innocent person.

[Busyman]

that's why the system needs some tweaking,
and sentences should be carried out expeditiously

http://cpr.ca.gov/report/indrpt/corr/report/7.htm
http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter.html
http://www.kslegislature.org/postaud...rm/04pa03a.pdf (PDF file)

the costs of a death penalty (trial) far outweigh a non-death penalty case
but the actual carrying out of the sentence, death penalties are half the cost
(see the table on page 13 of the PDF link)
and thats in Kansas, its no doubt more expensive here in California,
in all aspects, death and non-death cases

the cost of housing an inmate is about 28,000 USD per year
so, $560-840k over the 20-30 yrs it would take to actually carry out the sentence
California houses 604 condemned inmates (as per a 2004 study)
thats $16.9 million per year, just in housing costs, over 30 years thats $507 million
when adding in costs of appeals trials alone, it no doubt runs into the billions
just California alone, just for condemned inmates
we could use that money to educate children,
fund more community programs, so they have places to go, things to do,
instead of committing crimes

The only problem is killing an innocent.

There still has to be some good form of appeals process.

Hell I've seen lifers later proven innocent with new DNA evidence.
(for many DNA testing wasn't around or ubiquitous)

We also could tighten up what beyond reasonable doubt is when it involves the death penalty.
I mean if the person is caught on tape doing the crime then gotta go gotta go!!!
But if it's questionable like I guess the Lacy Peterson case then no.

[Busyman]

There is only one true deterrant and that is certainty of detection. Once detected the decision of what is to be done with the offender is purely up to the perceived needs of the society in which the offence occurred.

In those societies where there is a considerable degree of crime and where the detection rate is depressingly low there is an understandable desire to exact revenge and set an example. However, it is arguable if there is any really significant impact on crime rates.

My own view is that society gains little from aping the tactics of the killers and that simply placing them where they can harm no one else is the best course of action. It is hardly a soft option considering the lengths that criminals will go to avoid detection in the UK. Consequently, I think the decision is the correct one and sets an interesting precedent for future cases.

I do believe, however, that pathological killers should be detained for as long as they are active enough to present a threat to others.

The problem is that it is already bad enough that the person committed a horrific crime against society. They further drain society by being put into sort of a pseudo-exile but one in which that society foots the bill for the inmates luxuries (yes LUXURIES).

[Biggles]

The problem is that it is already bad enough that the person committed a horrific crime against society. They further drain society by being put into sort of a pseudo-exile but one in which that society foots the bill for the inmates luxuries (yes LUXURIES).

Luxuries We talking about an Audi Quattro or toilet paper?

However, I do agree that the level to which a society could sustain such a policy is directly proportional to the crime rate. A high crime rate really eats into society like a cancer and the ability of the body social to sustain it for any length of time is extremely limited. However, I do think the control of crime is 1) more linked to possibilty of arrest rather than any potential punishment and 2) the cohesion of that society to a shared set of values.

[Busyman]

Luxuries We talking about an Audi Quattro or toilet paper?

However, I do agree that the level to which a society could sustain such a policy is directly proportional to the crime rate. A high crime rate really eats into society like a cancer and the ability of the body social to sustain it for any length of time is extremely limited. However, I do think the control of crime is 1) more linked to possibilty of arrest rather than any potential punishment and 2) the cohesion of that society to a shared set of values.

Not so.

If I'm arrested with a slap on the wrist, I was still arrested yet I might arbitrarily break my foot off in someone's ass without a second thought.......again.

[Busyman]

JPaul-

As re your statement about deterrence:

How would one go about gathering statistical evidence about how many people do not commit murder due to fear of being put to death themselves?

I think this begs your conclusion.

Thank you j2.

I asked basically the same question with no answer.

Someone has been cornered.

[Biggles]

One would think a society suffering a high crime rate would have a concurrent lack of "cohesion" to a proper set of "shared values".

At least theoretically.

Probably more than theoretically. T'is what I was alluding too. Fixing crime begins in the cradle rather than the execution chamber. Likewise detection of crime is easier if the society at large finds it abhorant. There is not much point in stealing an object if no one will buy it, but rather chose to phone the police and say "there is a chap in my local trying to sell stolen goods".

Quite how one fosters a shared set of values once they are lost is another matter. It is the modern alchemist's stone for politicians.

Sorry Vidcc.