Death Penalty Poll

[testarosa]

Wondering how much death penalty opinions align with general party affiliation.



My first poll. Hope this works.

You caught my attention.

Think it doesn't go to party - think it goes to personal experience.

DP, non partisan for me.

 

[DarkLion]

I have thought this through. I just have more respect for the need to protect our law enforcement, over protecting those who choose to kill them from facing their consequences with capital punishment. I have never swayed from that position, never will.

Eliminating capital punishment would not be protecting killers. It would be protecting citizens from a system that gets it wrong far too often.

Besides, for those who really are guilty, prison is a living death. The only way they'll ever be free is in a body bag. Why end their suffering so soon?

 

[JohnA]

I don't understand people who claim the government is incompetent at everything that it does, but still willingly give the government power to kill.

One single falsely convicted person being executed is enough of a reason for me not to support capital punishment - and there have been hundreds, if not thousands.

Hello?? Really?? I guess we have to go back to school here, don't we?

I am assuming that the "government" that you are referring to is the same government that administers the social security system, inspects meat prior to sale, plans and builds the roads that we drive on, and provides air traffic controllers so that planes don't crash into one another in the sky overhead. If that is the case, the "government" does not have the power to kill, as you so incorrectly put it.

When a person commits a heinous crime, they are arrested and charged with the crime. The District Attorney, here representing the "people" prosecute the accused with the Defense Attorney representing the best interest of the accused. Originally, the system was weighted (and more so now) so that the people were at a disadvantage in having to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the accused in fact committed the crime. In the case of death penalty cases, their must also be proven facts in the case in which the crime was specifically "heinous".

Here's where you may be getting confused. Twelve people, agreed to by "the people" and the defense listen to the evidence and then decide if the accused is in fact guilty. If they are, then they also must weigh the evidence to ensure that the requirements for heinous acts fit the crime. If they do, then the jury may recommend the death sentence. Depending on what state, the judge may be required to sentence as the jury found, or they may disregard the sentence and impose their own.

Now the "government" gets involved and takes the accused into custody where they are imprisoned for probably about 15 years. The "government", if all of the appeals fail, then administers the sentence imposed by the jury.

By the way, unless you have been in a coma for the last three weeks, I am almost positive that any half-sane person could look at whats going on with our out-of-control government and conclude that it is slightly less efficient that several dead batteries. Big government is a pathway to tyranny and in the IRS scandal, we are seeing exactly that.

well said

 

[Flopper]

Is that why the left supports the "ceremonial" enforcement of gun laws through regulations, without the need to have any teeth towards sentencing. I believe certain cases justify the death penalty, depending on the crime: such as the killing of a state trooper or in the case of convicted a serial killer. Of course we DO have DNA and other continuing advances in science to bring more certainty of one's guilt in the crime. Still, it's rather interesting and speaks volumes on how we view and respect the roles of cops, it we aren't willing to have capital punishment laws to protect their lives. Guess we can see the human "value" that comes with the job "To Protect and Serve".

I wouldn't know why the left supports gun control. Gun grabbers confuse me.

But your post is moot, because capital punishment doesn't deter people from shooting cops. It doesn't deter anyone from doing anything. That has been proven.

It's proven because of the time involved, as well as appeals, between sentencing and execution. Why should any criminal be fearful of the death penalty with such a prolonged outcome?

The vast majority of people that commit capital crimes do not fear the death penalty even before they commit the crime which makes it no real deterrent. Most capital crimes fall into the following categories in which there is no consideration given to the penalty.
Murders committed during the act of committing another crime such as an armed robbery or kidnapping that went bad, a rapist who loses control, a mentally unbalance person who is legally sane, a terrorist who seeks martyrdom, a serial killer who kills because of a compulsion to kill, or a premeditated murder who is confident they will never be caught.

Capital punishment as a deterrent makes no sense.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I have thought this through. I just have more respect for the need to protect our law enforcement, over protecting those who choose to kill them from facing their consequences with capital punishment. I have never swayed from that position, never will.

Eliminating capital punishment would not be protecting killers. It would be protecting citizens from a system that gets it wrong far too often.

Besides, for those who really are guilty, prison is a living death. The only way they'll ever be free is in a body bag. Why end their suffering so soon?

We are no longer in the 1920s. Forensics, DNA, and technological advancements in science, have allowed for greater certainty of guilt when looking at the possibility of a death sentence. There is less of a "reasonable doubt", as it has become increasingly more difficult (in the world of science) for criminals to not leave certain "fingerprints" of their involvement behind. There needs to be strong consequence for people's actions when the case involves serial killers of a brutal nature. The fact that the system doesn't often like to follow through on their execution decisions, but prolongs sentencing, is the very reason criminals don't take our judicial system seriously.

Then there is the other growing issue when you choose incarceration, when you simply make the decision to group them with other less violent crimes:

Under the court order, the state must reduce the population in its 33 adult prisons to about 110,000 inmates by year's end to improve the treatment of sick and mentally ill inmates. The state is preparing to appeal, but the U.S. Supreme Court already has upheld the decision once.

California Prison: Early Releases For Inmates Might Be Used To Combat Overcrowding

Now the issue of overcrowding has led to the premature release of criminals BACK into society. How exactly is that making any one feel "safer" by following through with such a decision, to simply start letting criminals go and REDUCE their overall sentence? Doesn't appear you have really taken the time to thoroughly think this issue through, now does it?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I wouldn't know why the left supports gun control. Gun grabbers confuse me.

But your post is moot, because capital punishment doesn't deter people from shooting cops. It doesn't deter anyone from doing anything. That has been proven.

It's proven because of the time involved, as well as appeals, between sentencing and execution. Why should any criminal be fearful of the death penalty with such a prolonged outcome?

The vast majority of people that commit capital crimes do not fear the death penalty even before they commit the crime which makes it no real deterrent. Most capital crimes fall into the following categories in which there is no consideration given to the penalty.
Murders committed during the act of committing another crime such as an armed robbery or kidnapping that went bad, a rapist who loses control, a mentally unbalance person who is legally sane, a terrorist who seeks martyrdom, a serial killer who kills because of a compulsion to kill, or a premeditated murder who is confident they will never be caught.

Capital punishment as a deterrent makes no sense.

I'd say it's the very thought we can somehow rehabilitate such sever violent behavior through an environment of a prison, that makes no sense.

 

[Trakar]

Wondering how much death penalty opinions align with general party affiliation.



My first poll. Hope this works.

If you are looking for party affiliation correlations to death penalty, you should have asked about party affiliation and death penalty in poll. I am a progressive Republican, thus you get a poll response of left leaning, opposed to death penalty, instead of what you are looking for "registered Republican against capital punishment"

 

[Trakar]

Here's a bunch.
Executed But Possibly Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center

I am shocked that 6 out of 9 of those were in Texas.

And by "shocked" I mean "not at all shocked".

remember texas has the 2nd largest population in the US
kindy makes the stats more comparable

Texas has a little over twenty million people about on par with New York and Florida which each have around 19 million and a bit more than half of California's population at nearly 40 million. Of relevance to this thread, however, somehow Texas has executed more people in the last 40 years than the next highest ranking nine states combined:

Rank State Since 1976*
1. Texas 379
2. Georgia 39
3. New York 0
4. California 13
5. North Carolina 43
6. Florida 64
7. South Carolina 36
8. Ohio 24
9. Virginia 98
10. Alabama 35

And if we add some international perspective, the US ranks fifth in the world in the number of its own citizens that it executes each year, between Yemen and S. Arabia, with the four nations responsible for killing more of their own citizens than the US being:

#1 - China
#2 - Iran
#3 - N. Korea
#4 - Yemen

*rankings were established by totals since 1930, many of these states have dramatically changed their systems over the last 50 years so modern relevance is established by only carrying the numbers back to the mid-70s

 

[Flopper]

It's proven because of the time involved, as well as appeals, between sentencing and execution. Why should any criminal be fearful of the death penalty with such a prolonged outcome?

The vast majority of people that commit capital crimes do not fear the death penalty even before they commit the crime which makes it no real deterrent. Most capital crimes fall into the following categories in which there is no consideration given to the penalty.
Murders committed during the act of committing another crime such as an armed robbery or kidnapping that went bad, a rapist who loses control, a mentally unbalance person who is legally sane, a terrorist who seeks martyrdom, a serial killer who kills because of a compulsion to kill, or a premeditated murder who is confident they will never be caught.

Capital punishment as a deterrent makes no sense.

I'd say it's the very thought we can somehow rehabilitate such sever violent behavior through an environment of a prison, that makes no sense.

Only the very naive believe the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate. The primary purpose of prison is to separate the criminal from society so he can not repeat the crime. The death penalty accomplishes this goal but creates a serious problem. Society must either accept the fact that the judicial system will make mistakes because it is not perfect and thus the state will murder innocent people which is unacceptable. So we have to build into the system countless delays and appeals so the state can be justified that it has done all that is possible to insure justice. This runs the cost up higher than a life sentence, which again is not acceptable. The far better solution is a life sentence without parole in lieu of the death penalty. It will save money, same innocent people from being executed, and breaks the chain of violence which actually increase criminality.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The vast majority of people that commit capital crimes do not fear the death penalty even before they commit the crime which makes it no real deterrent. Most capital crimes fall into the following categories in which there is no consideration given to the penalty.
Murders committed during the act of committing another crime such as an armed robbery or kidnapping that went bad, a rapist who loses control, a mentally unbalance person who is legally sane, a terrorist who seeks martyrdom, a serial killer who kills because of a compulsion to kill, or a premeditated murder who is confident they will never be caught.

Capital punishment as a deterrent makes no sense.

I'd say it's the very thought we can somehow rehabilitate such sever violent behavior through an environment of a prison, that makes no sense.

Only the very naive believe the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate. The primary purpose of prison is to separate the criminal from society so he can not repeat the crime. The death penalty accomplishes this goal but creates a serious problem. Society must either accept the fact that the judicial system will make mistakes because it is not perfect and thus the state will murder innocent people which is unacceptable. So we have to build into the system countless delays and appeals so the state can be justified that it has done all that is possible to insure justice. This runs the cost up higher than a life sentence, which again is not acceptable. The far better solution is a life sentence without parole in lieu of the death penalty. It will save money, same innocent people from being executed, and breaks the chain of violence which actually increase criminality.

A prison sentence is not free of appeals. To then say that a prison is to be seen as separating the violent criminal from society, is to only confirm a preconceived belief in their guilt not their innocence. Advancements in scientific research only dampens, not strengthens, the belief of convicting the innocent of someone else's crime. Our justice system, in placing a violent criminal as a willful participant in the screen of a crime, has only gotten stronger .... not weaker. The overcrowding in prisons with the need to reevaluate and shorten criminal sentencing, also plays against your argument that you still have the ability to use prisons to protect society from criminals. Prisons are finding themselves inadequate to perform that roll, without bringing risk upon that society you "claim" they have the ability to protect. Placing the most violent in a life term prison does not appear to be as effective as you had hoped, despite the belief you can simply "hold" them in their cell and society will simply move on.

 

[Flopper]

I'd say it's the very thought we can somehow rehabilitate such sever violent behavior through an environment of a prison, that makes no sense.

Only the very naive believe the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate. The primary purpose of prison is to separate the criminal from society so he can not repeat the crime. The death penalty accomplishes this goal but creates a serious problem. Society must either accept the fact that the judicial system will make mistakes because it is not perfect and thus the state will murder innocent people which is unacceptable. So we have to build into the system countless delays and appeals so the state can be justified that it has done all that is possible to insure justice. This runs the cost up higher than a life sentence, which again is not acceptable. The far better solution is a life sentence without parole in lieu of the death penalty. It will save money, same innocent people from being executed, and breaks the chain of violence which actually increase criminality.

A prison sentence is not free of appeals. To then say that a prison is to be seen as separating the violent criminal from society, is to only confirm a preconceived belief in their guilt not their innocence. Advancements in scientific research only dampens, not strengthens, the belief of convicting the innocent of someone else's crime. Our justice system, in placing a violent criminal as a willful participant in the screen of a crime, has only gotten stronger .... not weaker. The overcrowding in prisons with the need to reevaluate and shorten criminal sentencing, also plays against your argument that you still have the ability to use prisons to protect society from criminals. Prisons are finding themselves inadequate to perform that roll, without bringing risk upon that society you "claim" they have the ability to protect. Placing the most violent in a life term prison does not appear to be as effective as you had hoped, despite the belief you can simply "hold" them in their cell and society will simply move on.

Not sure I understand your point.
Of course we assume a person is guilty once imprisoned, most are, but there should always be a way for the state to correct it's mistakes. However, once a person is executed there can be no correction.

Whether we like it or not, the primary purpose of prisons is to temporarily separate the offender from society. Proposals of new prisons are shot down, mostly by conservatives. This has lead to shorter sentences, commuted sentence, and early release.

Rehabilitation is a joke in most prisons. The insistence that prisons be more self supporting and labor be designed to punish the prisoner has resulted in many prisoners getting no usefully job training and leave prison prepared only for a life of crime.

Overcrowding in prisons is irrelevant in the death penalty argument because we have never executed more than 100 people in any year. Adding a 100 prisoners a year to the over 2.6 million in state and federal prisons is insignificant. Keeping them in prison for life will have no measurable effect on overcrowding nor on public safety. In fact we could even increase the capacity of our prison system by converting death row into a general population facility.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Only the very naive believe the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate. The primary purpose of prison is to separate the criminal from society so he can not repeat the crime. The death penalty accomplishes this goal but creates a serious problem. Society must either accept the fact that the judicial system will make mistakes because it is not perfect and thus the state will murder innocent people which is unacceptable. So we have to build into the system countless delays and appeals so the state can be justified that it has done all that is possible to insure justice. This runs the cost up higher than a life sentence, which again is not acceptable. The far better solution is a life sentence without parole in lieu of the death penalty. It will save money, same innocent people from being executed, and breaks the chain of violence which actually increase criminality.

A prison sentence is not free of appeals. To then say that a prison is to be seen as separating the violent criminal from society, is to only confirm a preconceived belief in their guilt not their innocence. Advancements in scientific research only dampens, not strengthens, the belief of convicting the innocent of someone else's crime. Our justice system, in placing a violent criminal as a willful participant in the screen of a crime, has only gotten stronger .... not weaker. The overcrowding in prisons with the need to reevaluate and shorten criminal sentencing, also plays against your argument that you still have the ability to use prisons to protect society from criminals. Prisons are finding themselves inadequate to perform that roll, without bringing risk upon that society you "claim" they have the ability to protect. Placing the most violent in a life term prison does not appear to be as effective as you had hoped, despite the belief you can simply "hold" them in their cell and society will simply move on.

Not sure I understand your point.
Of course we assume a person is guilty once imprisoned, most are, but there should always be a way for the state to correct it's mistakes. However, once a person is executed there can be no correction.

Whether we like it or not, the primary purpose of prisons is to temporarily separate the offender from society. Proposals of new prisons are shot down, mostly by conservatives. This has lead to shorter sentences, commuted sentence, and early release.

Rehabilitation is a joke in most prisons. The insistence that prisons be more self supporting and labor be designed to punish the prisoner has resulted in many prisoners getting no usefully job training and leave prison prepared only for a life of crime.

Overcrowding in prisons is irrelevant in the death penalty argument because we have never executed more than 100 people in any year. Adding a 100 prisoners a year to the over 2.6 million in state and federal prisons is insignificant. Keeping them in prison for life will have no measurable effect on overcrowding nor on public safety. In fact we could even increase the capacity of our prison system by converting death row into a general population facility.

Sorry, I'm not buying your point. Prisoners who serve life have no need of taxpayer dollars towards any job training. Provision of FREE taxpayer education towards an advanced skill career, would otherwise become a HUGE expense in itself. Again, if there is a need to give a criminal a life sentence (even consecutive life terms) to protect them from society, that only serves to confirm a preconceived belief in their guilt not towards their innocence. Otherwise their sentences would have left the possibility of being reduced, not so in the case of those not even eligible for parole. If the individual is in their early 30s with multiple life sentences, for example, there is no taxpayer savings. In fact there are more costs involved in providing them with health care and medical attention (victims of prison gang violence, AIDS, heart attack, natural medical attention associated with age, etc), as well as food and other provisions that could be used towards another criminal not convicted under such a sentence. The idea that you can save more taxpayer dollars by keeping a criminal healthy through medical care and all their provision needs for 40 years or more, just doesn't hold weight. Sorry.

Overcrowding only serves to show how inadequate and incapable prisons really are, in keeping those in society "safe" from criminals. That argument of "protecting" society is finding problems with the very issue of overcrowding, and pushing early release for the SOLE PURPOSE to ease congestion for "health" purposes.

 

[Flopper]

Prisoners who serve life have no need of taxpayer dollars towards any job training. Provision of FREE taxpayer education towards an advanced skill career, would otherwise become a HUGE expense in itself.

On average, a person sentenced to a life term will serve 20 to 25 years. Such a person needs education so they have some skills to cope with the outside world and earn a living. If they fail to do so, then they will end up being wards of the state again. I agree a person serving the remainder of their life in prison has no needed for job training. However, the cost is minimal because the prison will still offer the training to non-lifers plus the purpose of most job training in prison is to reduce cost of running prison. Most of the work done in prisoners is done by prisoners to cut costs.

Again, if there is a need to give a criminal a life sentence (even consecutive life terms) to protect them from society, that only serves to confirm a preconceived belief in their guilt not towards their innocence. Otherwise their sentences would have left the possibility of being reduced, not so in the case of those not even eligible for parole.

I assume you mean protect society from the criminal. I don't oppose the death penalty because I believe the convicted are likely to be innocent. To the contrary, I think they may all be guilty. However, the judicial system is just another branch of government that makes mistakes and there is no way to make right the execution of just one innocent man.

If the individual is in their early 30s with multiple life sentences, for example, there is no taxpayer savings. In fact there are more costs involved in providing them with health care and medical attention (victims of prison gang violence, AIDS, heart attack, natural medical attention associated with age, etc), as well as food and other provisions that could be used towards another criminal not convicted under such a sentence. The idea that you can save more taxpayer dollars by keeping a criminal healthy through medical care and all their provision needs for 40 years or more, just doesn't hold weight. Sorry.

There is plenty of evidence from multiple studies that confirm that punishment by death is much more expensive than life without parole. I think you're neglecting the costs of trying a capital case, maintaining death row, handling appeals, and stays. New Jersey stopped executions in 2007 because the average cost was $4.7 million for each death sentence.

To execute or not: A question of cost? - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News

Overcrowding only serves to show how inadequate and incapable prisons really are, in keeping those in society "safe" from criminals. That argument of "protecting" society is finding problems with the very issue of overcrowding, and pushing early release for the SOLE PURPOSE to ease congestion for "health" purposes.

Overcrowding only serves to show we do not build enough prisons. It's not just a health issue in many our prisons, it's a safety issue for employees, and prisoners. Overcrowding, also raises the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Just like everything else in society, the public wants but the public doesn't want to pay.

 

[JohnA]

Prisoners who serve life have no need of taxpayer dollars towards any job training. Provision of FREE taxpayer education towards an advanced skill career, would otherwise become a HUGE expense in itself.

On average, a person sentenced to a life term will serve 20 to 25 years. Such a person needs education so they have some skills to cope with the outside world and earn a living. If they fail to do so, then they will end up being wards of the state again. I agree a person serving the remainder of their life in prison has no needed for job training. However, the cost is minimal because the prison will still offer the training to non-lifers plus the purpose of most job training in prison is to reduce cost of running prison. Most of the work done in prisoners is done by prisoners to cut costs.

Again, if there is a need to give a criminal a life sentence (even consecutive life terms) to protect them from society, that only serves to confirm a preconceived belief in their guilt not towards their innocence. Otherwise their sentences would have left the possibility of being reduced, not so in the case of those not even eligible for parole.

I assume you mean protect society from the criminal. I don't oppose the death penalty because I believe the convicted are likely to be innocent. To the contrary, I think they may all be guilty. However, the judicial system is just another branch of government that makes mistakes and there is no way to make right the execution of just one innocent man.

If the individual is in their early 30s with multiple life sentences, for example, there is no taxpayer savings. In fact there are more costs involved in providing them with health care and medical attention (victims of prison gang violence, AIDS, heart attack, natural medical attention associated with age, etc), as well as food and other provisions that could be used towards another criminal not convicted under such a sentence. The idea that you can save more taxpayer dollars by keeping a criminal healthy through medical care and all their provision needs for 40 years or more, just doesn't hold weight. Sorry.

There is plenty of evidence from multiple studies that confirm that punishment by death is much more expensive than life without parole. I think you're neglecting the costs of trying a capital case, maintaining death row, handling appeals, and stays. New Jersey stopped executions in 2007 because the average cost was $4.7 million for each death sentence.

To execute or not: A question of cost? - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News

Overcrowding only serves to show how inadequate and incapable prisons really are, in keeping those in society "safe" from criminals. That argument of "protecting" society is finding problems with the very issue of overcrowding, and pushing early release for the SOLE PURPOSE to ease congestion for "health" purposes.

Overcrowding only serves to show we do not build enough prisons. It's not just a health issue in many our prisons, it's a safety issue for employees, and prisoners. Overcrowding, also raises the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Just like everything else in society, the public wants but the public doesn't want to pay.

overcrowding is the result of the needless locking up of citizens for such crimes as smoking pot etc etc. when we reserve prison sentences for the REAL criminals most of the overcrowding problems will be solved

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I don't oppose the death penalty because I believe the convicted are likely to be innocent. To the contrary, I think they may all be guilty. However, the judicial system is just another branch of government that makes mistakes and there is no way to make right the execution of just one innocent man.

Advancements in the science of our criminal system makes it harder for the innocent to be wrongly convicted. With Forensics, DNA, and growing advancements in scientific technology, this only weakens the argument of executing someone who turns out to be innocent. We have advanced well beyond simply fingerprints on a murder weapon. I have confidence in our judicial system in performing its job, based on how detailed and specific crime investigations have become.

There is plenty of evidence from multiple studies that confirm that punishment by death is much more expensive than life without parole. I think you're neglecting the costs of trying a capital case, maintaining death row, handling appeals, and stays. New Jersey stopped executions in 2007 because the average cost was $4.7 million for each death sentence.

When you piece together very detailed bit of evidence, using all the latest advancements in criminal science, powder burns - traces of personal DNA at the scene and the weapon, in addition to the traditional fingerprints - witnesses - timelines - motives - and opportunity... the difficulty in finding any "reasonable doubt" only intensifies. The death penalty should seek and enforce such high standards for conviction. Based on more overwhelming detailed evidence linking the criminal to the crime, the process of automatic appeals should then be redefined to reflect these advancements in the criminal evidence process, with ONLY the discovery of new undisclosed evidence in court as its means towards attaining an appeal. Again, this prolonged stay between sentencing and execution with every execution is what adds to the cost. When reasonable doubt has been determined in court based on overwhelmingly detailed advancements taken to examining the evidence, such automatic appeals leads to its abuse in a judicial system that needs to enforce accountability of one's own actions. Such accountability for a crime FAILS with the growing perception of criminals, when they themselves see that many will never face death .... even for the most violent of crimes. Society (through its own response and actions) has grown more tolerant of their violent behavior, in the eyes of a criminal, with even the possibility of finding release becoming more probable than the chance of a judicial system's ability to follow through on its threat of death. We have become more tolerant as a society, where the search for excuses becomes the comfort for criminals and their violent behavior.

Overcrowding only serves to show we do not build enough prisons. It's not just a health issue in many our prisons, it's a safety issue for employees, and prisoners. Overcrowding, also raises the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Just like everything else in society, the public wants but the public doesn't want to pay.

Overcrowding is the example of a the failure of the prison system to be seen as a deterrent to committing crimes. Rather than hard labor, and punishment we educate them with skills. This fact alone contradicts your argument that prisons are not meant to rehabilitate. Most certainly they are, if re-education is the key to preventing a reoccurrence of their criminal behavior. We have taxpayer dollars that provide them with "skills" that are beyond that of a simple high school education. These are trade skills or advanced degrees than many in society seek a means to fund on their own to obtain. If the prisons of an older time were seen as too harsh, it's because they were meant to be. Rather than a place where provisions, like access to a gym or a basketball court are more prevalent... it's the tradition of receiving hard labor as a form of punishment. The fact that such later reforms (in the manner we conduct prisons) is seen as a better deterrent, is simply untrue as reflected through the issue of overcrowding.

Then there is the cost of providing them with health care and treatments over various injuries and preventative measures towards life threatening conditions that come with age... or disease prevention and treatment. If the prisons of an older time were seen as too harsh, it's because they were meant to be. Should prisoners be given medical treatment, yes. However, the rise in criminal population only adds to the system's overall failure. That failure is in the prisons inadequate ability to perform it's primary role, which is to be seen as a deterrent to committing crime. This in turn has led to even higher costs to maintain them, with even greater concerns over guard safety and gang violence. All this only adds to the overall costs, in an effort to provide adequate medical care. When society becomes MORE consumed over the conditions and provisions granted to a criminal, over it's primary role to create an environment of deterrence, then we reap the repercussions of such decisions in our society.

 

[Flopper]

Prisoners who serve life have no need of taxpayer dollars towards any job training. Provision of FREE taxpayer education towards an advanced skill career, would otherwise become a HUGE expense in itself.

On average, a person sentenced to a life term will serve 20 to 25 years. Such a person needs education so they have some skills to cope with the outside world and earn a living. If they fail to do so, then they will end up being wards of the state again. I agree a person serving the remainder of their life in prison has no needed for job training. However, the cost is minimal because the prison will still offer the training to non-lifers plus the purpose of most job training in prison is to reduce cost of running prison. Most of the work done in prisoners is done by prisoners to cut costs.


I assume you mean protect society from the criminal. I don't oppose the death penalty because I believe the convicted are likely to be innocent. To the contrary, I think they may all be guilty. However, the judicial system is just another branch of government that makes mistakes and there is no way to make right the execution of just one innocent man.


There is plenty of evidence from multiple studies that confirm that punishment by death is much more expensive than life without parole. I think you're neglecting the costs of trying a capital case, maintaining death row, handling appeals, and stays. New Jersey stopped executions in 2007 because the average cost was $4.7 million for each death sentence.

To execute or not: A question of cost? - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News

Overcrowding only serves to show how inadequate and incapable prisons really are, in keeping those in society "safe" from criminals. That argument of "protecting" society is finding problems with the very issue of overcrowding, and pushing early release for the SOLE PURPOSE to ease congestion for "health" purposes.

Overcrowding only serves to show we do not build enough prisons. It's not just a health issue in many our prisons, it's a safety issue for employees, and prisoners. Overcrowding, also raises the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Just like everything else in society, the public wants but the public doesn't want to pay.

overcrowding is the result of the needless locking up of citizens for such crimes as smoking pot etc etc. when we reserve prison sentences for the REAL criminals most of the overcrowding problems will be solved

There's a lot truth in your statement. 28.5% of those in prison are there for drug offenses. Just decriminalization of drug use is not the complete answer to the problem. Many of those in prison for drug possession are also serving time for armed robbery, murder, and assault.

The real solution, is solving the drug problem not just decriminalize it. If you solve the drug problem, you have not only solved the problem of overcrowding in prisons but you have unclogged the criminal justice system so it can do it's job and you have save our nation over a half trillion dollars a year not mention the impact on almost every family in America.

 

[Katzndogz]

Prisoners who serve life have no need of taxpayer dollars towards any job training. Provision of FREE taxpayer education towards an advanced skill career, would otherwise become a HUGE expense in itself.

On average, a person sentenced to a life term will serve 20 to 25 years. Such a person needs education so they have some skills to cope with the outside world and earn a living. If they fail to do so, then they will end up being wards of the state again. I agree a person serving the remainder of their life in prison has no needed for job training. However, the cost is minimal because the prison will still offer the training to non-lifers plus the purpose of most job training in prison is to reduce cost of running prison. Most of the work done in prisoners is done by prisoners to cut costs.


I assume you mean protect society from the criminal. I don't oppose the death penalty because I believe the convicted are likely to be innocent. To the contrary, I think they may all be guilty. However, the judicial system is just another branch of government that makes mistakes and there is no way to make right the execution of just one innocent man.


There is plenty of evidence from multiple studies that confirm that punishment by death is much more expensive than life without parole. I think you're neglecting the costs of trying a capital case, maintaining death row, handling appeals, and stays. New Jersey stopped executions in 2007 because the average cost was $4.7 million for each death sentence.

To execute or not: A question of cost? - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News

Overcrowding only serves to show how inadequate and incapable prisons really are, in keeping those in society "safe" from criminals. That argument of "protecting" society is finding problems with the very issue of overcrowding, and pushing early release for the SOLE PURPOSE to ease congestion for "health" purposes.

Overcrowding only serves to show we do not build enough prisons. It's not just a health issue in many our prisons, it's a safety issue for employees, and prisoners. Overcrowding, also raises the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Just like everything else in society, the public wants but the public doesn't want to pay.

overcrowding is the result of the needless locking up of citizens for such crimes as smoking pot etc etc. when we reserve prison sentences for the REAL criminals most of the overcrowding problems will be solved

They aren't locked up for smoking pot. They are locked up for crimes they committed and incidentally, they smoke pot too.

Marijuana is drug most often linked to crime, study finds | McClatchy

WASHINGTON — Marijuana is the drug most often linked to crime in the United States, the U.S. drug czar said Thursday, dismissing calls for legalization as a “bumper-sticker approach” that should be avoided.

Gil Kerlikowske, the White House director of national drug-control policy, said a study by his office showed a strong link between drug use and crime. Eighty percent of the adult males arrested for crimes in Sacramento, Calif., last year tested positive for at least one illegal drug. Marijuana was the most commonly detected drug, found in 54 percent of those arrested.

 

[rightwinger]

On average, a person sentenced to a life term will serve 20 to 25 years. Such a person needs education so they have some skills to cope with the outside world and earn a living. If they fail to do so, then they will end up being wards of the state again. I agree a person serving the remainder of their life in prison has no needed for job training. However, the cost is minimal because the prison will still offer the training to non-lifers plus the purpose of most job training in prison is to reduce cost of running prison. Most of the work done in prisoners is done by prisoners to cut costs.


I assume you mean protect society from the criminal. I don't oppose the death penalty because I believe the convicted are likely to be innocent. To the contrary, I think they may all be guilty. However, the judicial system is just another branch of government that makes mistakes and there is no way to make right the execution of just one innocent man.


There is plenty of evidence from multiple studies that confirm that punishment by death is much more expensive than life without parole. I think you're neglecting the costs of trying a capital case, maintaining death row, handling appeals, and stays. New Jersey stopped executions in 2007 because the average cost was $4.7 million for each death sentence.

To execute or not: A question of cost? - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News


Overcrowding only serves to show we do not build enough prisons. It's not just a health issue in many our prisons, it's a safety issue for employees, and prisoners. Overcrowding, also raises the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Just like everything else in society, the public wants but the public doesn't want to pay.

overcrowding is the result of the needless locking up of citizens for such crimes as smoking pot etc etc. when we reserve prison sentences for the REAL criminals most of the overcrowding problems will be solved

They aren't locked up for smoking pot. They are locked up for crimes they committed and incidentally, they smoke pot too.

Marijuana is drug most often linked to crime, study finds | McClatchy

WASHINGTON — Marijuana is the drug most often linked to crime in the United States, the U.S. drug czar said Thursday, dismissing calls for legalization as a “bumper-sticker approach” that should be avoided.

Gil Kerlikowske, the White House director of national drug-control policy, said a study by his office showed a strong link between drug use and crime. Eighty percent of the adult males arrested for crimes in Sacramento, Calif., last year tested positive for at least one illegal drug. Marijuana was the most commonly detected drug, found in 54 percent of those arrested.

No correlation proven between smoking pot and committing crimes


Showing they had traces of marijuana in their system does not show that it caused them to commit crimes

 

[Flopper]

I don't oppose the death penalty because I believe the convicted are likely to be innocent. To the contrary, I think they may all be guilty. However, the judicial system is just another branch of government that makes mistakes and there is no way to make right the execution of just one innocent man.

Advancements in the science of our criminal system makes it harder for the innocent to be wrongly convicted. With Forensics, DNA, and growing advancements in scientific technology, this only weakens the argument of executing someone who turns out to be innocent. We have advanced well beyond simply fingerprints on a murder weapon. I have confidence in our judicial system in performing its job, based on how detailed and specific crime investigations have become.

There is plenty of evidence from multiple studies that confirm that punishment by death is much more expensive than life without parole. I think you're neglecting the costs of trying a capital case, maintaining death row, handling appeals, and stays. New Jersey stopped executions in 2007 because the average cost was $4.7 million for each death sentence.

When you piece together very detailed bit of evidence, using all the latest advancements in criminal science, powder burns - traces of personal DNA at the scene and the weapon, in addition to the traditional fingerprints - witnesses - timelines - motives - and opportunity... the difficulty in finding any "reasonable doubt" only intensifies. The death penalty should seek and enforce such high standards for conviction. Based on more overwhelming detailed evidence linking the criminal to the crime, the process of automatic appeals should then be redefined to reflect these advancements in the criminal evidence process, with ONLY the discovery of new undisclosed evidence in court as its means towards attaining an appeal. Again, this prolonged stay between sentencing and execution with every execution is what adds to the cost. When reasonable doubt has been determined in court based on overwhelmingly detailed advancements taken to examining the evidence, such automatic appeals leads to its abuse in a judicial system that needs to enforce accountability of one's own actions. Such accountability for a crime FAILS with the growing perception of criminals, when they themselves see that many will never face death .... even for the most violent of crimes. Society (through its own response and actions) has grown more tolerant of their violent behavior, in the eyes of a criminal, with even the possibility of finding release becoming more probable than the chance of a judicial system's ability to follow through on its threat of death. We have become more tolerant as a society, where the search for excuses becomes the comfort for criminals and their violent behavior.

Overcrowding only serves to show we do not build enough prisons. It's not just a health issue in many our prisons, it's a safety issue for employees, and prisoners. Overcrowding, also raises the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Just like everything else in society, the public wants but the public doesn't want to pay.

Overcrowding is the example of a the failure of the prison system to be seen as a deterrent to committing crimes. Rather than hard labor, and punishment we educate them with skills. This fact alone contradicts your argument that prisons are not meant to rehabilitate. Most certainly they are, if re-education is the key to preventing a reoccurrence of their criminal behavior. We have taxpayer dollars that provide them with "skills" that are beyond that of a simple high school education. These are trade skills or advanced degrees than many in society seek a means to fund on their own to obtain. If the prisons of an older time were seen as too harsh, it's because they were meant to be. Rather than a place where provisions, like access to a gym or a basketball court are more prevalent... it's the tradition of receiving hard labor as a form of punishment. The fact that such later reforms (in the manner we conduct prisons) is seen as a better deterrent, is simply untrue as reflected through the issue of overcrowding.

Then there is the cost of providing them with health care and treatments over various injuries and preventative measures towards life threatening conditions that come with age... or disease prevention and treatment. If the prisons of an older time were seen as too harsh, it's because they were meant to be. Should prisoners be given medical treatment, yes. However, the rise in criminal population only adds to the system's overall failure. That failure is in the prisons inadequate ability to perform it's primary role, which is to be seen as a deterrent to committing crime. This in turn has led to even higher costs to maintain them, with even greater concerns over guard safety and gang violence. All this only adds to the overall costs, in an effort to provide adequate medical care. When society becomes MORE consumed over the conditions and provisions granted to a criminal, over it's primary role to create an environment of deterrence, then we reap the repercussions of such decisions in our society.

It seems your argument in defense of capital punishment is based on the premise that the justice system is now perfect because of advances in science or maybe you fee the execution of a few innocent people is ok.

I agree with some of your thoughts on rehabilitation, however I did not say that the prison systems were not meant to rehabilitation prisoners. There has always been good intentions but the fact is it's been a failure. Rehabilitation today consist mostly of prison work programs designed to cut cost not teach useful job skills. Most prisoners leave prison with essential the same job skills they entered plus a prison record. It's a wonder any of them find employment.

 

[Flopper]

On average, a person sentenced to a life term will serve 20 to 25 years. Such a person needs education so they have some skills to cope with the outside world and earn a living. If they fail to do so, then they will end up being wards of the state again. I agree a person serving the remainder of their life in prison has no needed for job training. However, the cost is minimal because the prison will still offer the training to non-lifers plus the purpose of most job training in prison is to reduce cost of running prison. Most of the work done in prisoners is done by prisoners to cut costs.


I assume you mean protect society from the criminal. I don't oppose the death penalty because I believe the convicted are likely to be innocent. To the contrary, I think they may all be guilty. However, the judicial system is just another branch of government that makes mistakes and there is no way to make right the execution of just one innocent man.


There is plenty of evidence from multiple studies that confirm that punishment by death is much more expensive than life without parole. I think you're neglecting the costs of trying a capital case, maintaining death row, handling appeals, and stays. New Jersey stopped executions in 2007 because the average cost was $4.7 million for each death sentence.

To execute or not: A question of cost? - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News


Overcrowding only serves to show we do not build enough prisons. It's not just a health issue in many our prisons, it's a safety issue for employees, and prisoners. Overcrowding, also raises the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Just like everything else in society, the public wants but the public doesn't want to pay.

overcrowding is the result of the needless locking up of citizens for such crimes as smoking pot etc etc. when we reserve prison sentences for the REAL criminals most of the overcrowding problems will be solved

They aren't locked up for smoking pot. They are locked up for crimes they committed and incidentally, they smoke pot too.

Marijuana is drug most often linked to crime, study finds | McClatchy

WASHINGTON — Marijuana is the drug most often linked to crime in the United States, the U.S. drug czar said Thursday, dismissing calls for legalization as a “bumper-sticker approach” that should be avoided.

Gil Kerlikowske, the White House director of national drug-control policy, said a study by his office showed a strong link between drug use and crime. Eighty percent of the adult males arrested for crimes in Sacramento, Calif., last year tested positive for at least one illegal drug. Marijuana was the most commonly detected drug, found in 54 percent of those arrested.

You would probably find 54% were heavy smokers or drinkers. That doesn't imply a cause and effect relationship.