Capital Punishment

[eagle1462010]

I guess one reason to be against that would be that it gives the prisoners more opportunities to attack a guard and/or try to make an escape, but with our technology of today, that would be very difficult and probably rare that one would have the nerve to try and run off, so I think that could be something to be given serious consideration.

I have no problem with them having to earn their keep while there, with exception of the most violent of types who could possibly attack, harm and or kill a guard..............They are best in isolation.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The system is flawed and expensive only in that that those very obviously guilty are given endless rights of appeal. The Russian and Chinese protocol of putting a bullet in the back of the obvious convict's head is very efficient and cheap. The rest could go through a limited number of appeals processes to discern guilt.

What is wrong with that\?

Yes. That's exactly what we should be striving for, to be more like the communist Chinese.

 

[eagle1462010]

The High Cost of the Death Penalty

The exorbitant costs of capital punishment are actually making America less safe because badly needed financial and legal resources are being diverted from effective crime fighting strategies. Before the Los Angeles riots, for example, California had little money for innovations like community policing, but was managing to spend an extra $90 million per year on capital punishment. Texas, with over 300 people on death row, is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case, but its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country.

Morally, I'm for the death penalty. I see no reason to keep a Charles Manson, or a Ted Bundy alive after what they did.

But, as another poster has already stated.............it takes too many years and MILLIONS of dollars to execute a prisoner...................It also ties up the court system and leads to increased cost to the Gov'ts and States in the end.

For FISCAL reasons...........I'm against the death penalty.

I don't really feel sorry for the prisoners though (the ones you KNOW are guilty), don't get me wrong. There are just a lot of things wrong with the death penalty that could never be fixed.

What can never be fixed is the families of the loved ones lost to a violent murder by a criminal..........These people didn't get a trial, and didn't get to appeal anything.............They were brutally murdered................

In Manson's case he he helped kill Sharon Tate with a FORK AND KNIFE to her stomach..........He had no reason to be burden to society anymore to feed and house him for the rest of his life.....................He was a mad man and a BUTCHER........................

My Morals say EXECUTE HIM..............he has NO USE for CIVILIZED MAN in the world anymore...........but we housed him for a cost of over 25k per year forever................

I'm sorry, I don't like seeing tax dollars spent to keep this scumbag alive....................

But the legal system is so full of loop holes it costs too much to execute him.

And if the system didn't have an endless appeals system no doubt more innocent people would die. My reason is just as pragmatic as yours, if we can eliminate the possibility of wrongful executions then why shouldn't we?

I don't want an innocent to die for a crime he or she didn't commit anymore than you do.........That is a tragedy and not justice...................

but the appeals process is super expensive..........costing millions upon millions in States that can't build new prisons fast enough to meet the new populations.....................

There will never be a perfect system...........not possible.

 

[Meathead]

The system is flawed and expensive only in that that those very obviously guilty are given endless rights of appeal. The Russian and Chinese protocol of putting a bullet in the back of the obvious convict's head is very efficient and cheap. The rest could go through a limited number of appeals processes to discern guilt.

What is wrong with that\?

Because we are citizens of the USA. The government works for US. They are not our dictators, and I certainly don't trust them with the power to kill citizens. That's just stupid.

i WOULD EXPECT NOTHING MORE THAN TO FLUSH THE TOILETS THAT WE CAN'T iNDIVIDUALLY. IT IS INCUMBENT ON GOVERNMENT.

 

[ChrisL]

The High Cost of the Death Penalty

The exorbitant costs of capital punishment are actually making America less safe because badly needed financial and legal resources are being diverted from effective crime fighting strategies. Before the Los Angeles riots, for example, California had little money for innovations like community policing, but was managing to spend an extra $90 million per year on capital punishment. Texas, with over 300 people on death row, is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case, but its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country.

Morally, I'm for the death penalty. I see no reason to keep a Charles Manson, or a Ted Bundy alive after what they did.

But, as another poster has already stated.............it takes too many years and MILLIONS of dollars to execute a prisoner...................It also ties up the court system and leads to increased cost to the Gov'ts and States in the end.

For FISCAL reasons...........I'm against the death penalty.

I don't really feel sorry for the prisoners though (the ones you KNOW are guilty), don't get me wrong. There are just a lot of things wrong with the death penalty that could never be fixed.

What can never be fixed is the families of the loved ones lost to a violent murder by a criminal..........These people didn't get a trial, and didn't get to appeal anything.............They were brutally murdered................

In Manson's case he he helped kill Sharon Tate with a FORK AND KNIFE to her stomach..........He had no reason to be burden to society anymore to feed and house him for the rest of his life.....................He was a mad man and a BUTCHER........................

My Morals say EXECUTE HIM..............he has NO USE for CIVILIZED MAN in the world anymore...........but we housed him for a cost of over 25k per year forever................

I'm sorry, I don't like seeing tax dollars spent to keep this scumbag alive....................

But the legal system is so full of loop holes it costs too much to execute him.

And if the system didn't have an endless appeals system no doubt more innocent people would die. My reason is just as pragmatic as yours, if we can eliminate the possibility of wrongful executions then why shouldn't we?

I don't want an innocent to die for a crime he or she didn't commit anymore than you do.........That is a tragedy and not justice...................

but the appeals process is super expensive..........costing millions upon millions in States that can't build new prisons fast enough to meet the new populations.....................

There will never be a perfect system...........not possible.

I agree. There will never be a perfect system. We are not perfect, so no system we can create will be perfect. I don't even know if perfection is possible. Lol. The appeals process helps to protect us though. If there was no appeals process, imagine what the government could get away with? The appeals process is very important and well worth it.

I can tell you of another case in my local area (Rhode Island) where a cop was convicted of murdering a woman, and he served years for a crime he did not commit and was exonerated eventually.

Jeffrey Scott Hornoff s Conviction of Murdering His Former Mist

 

[ChrisL]

The system is flawed and expensive only in that that those very obviously guilty are given endless rights of appeal. The Russian and Chinese protocol of putting a bullet in the back of the obvious convict's head is very efficient and cheap. The rest could go through a limited number of appeals processes to discern guilt.

What is wrong with that\?

Because we are citizens of the USA. The government works for US. They are not our dictators, and I certainly don't trust them with the power to kill citizens. That's just stupid.

i WOULD EXPECT NOTHING MORE THAN TO FLUSH THE TOILETS THAT WE CAN'T iNDIVIDUALLY. IT IS INCUMBENT ON GOVERNMENT.

You need to be able to think outside the box.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi eagle1462010
And yet Democrats want to go after the 49 billion they claim is spent on hospital/ER costs unpaid, and charge THAT to law abiding working citizens through added taxes. And don't want to clean up THIS mess costing billions per state and charge THAT to the people responsible.

Too much work to actually FIX a problem costing taxpayer money.
And to use the money saved to pay for health care.

Easier to go after taxpayers federally through the IRS to collect from compliant citizens who haven't committed any crimes.

And it would merely empower the States to handle their own prisons and health care if reforms were sought per State.

So this doesn't help any Democrats with national agenda to go after
prisons since that means recognizing State jurisdiction.

What is the Average Cost to House Inmates in Prison

ccording to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, the average annual cost of incarceration in Federal prisons in 2010 was $28,284 per inmate. That cost is reduced at the Federal Community Corrections Centers; in 2010 the annual cost was $25,838.

Using that data it costs the country about 46 and a half Billion a year to house inmates in the country. approximate.

To execute or not A question of cost - US news - Crime courts NBC News

Money.

Turns out, it is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them, according to a series of recent surveys. Tens of millions of dollars cheaper, politicians are learning, during a tumbling recession when nearly every state faces job cuts and massive deficits.

So an increasing number of them are considering abolishing capital punishment in favor of life imprisonment, not on principle but out of financial necessity.

"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.

Deep into retirement, he lost his faith in an eye for an eye and now speaks against it. What changed a mind so set on the ultimate punishment?

'Waste of time and money' California's legendarily slow appeals system, which produces an average wait of nearly 20 years from conviction to fatal injection — the longest in the nation. Of the nine convicted killers McCartin sent to death row, only one has died. Not by execution, but from a heart attack in custody.

"Every one of my cases is bogged up in the appellate system," said McCartin, who retired in 1993 after 15 years on the bench.

"It's a waste of time and money," said the 82-year-old, self-described right-wing Republican whose sonorous voice still commands attention. "The only thing it does is prolong the agony of the victims' families."

 

[eagle1462010]

Hi eagle1462010
And yet Democrats want to go after the 49 billion they claim is spent on hospital/ER costs unpaid, and charge THAT to law abiding working citizens through added taxes. And don't want to clean up THIS mess costing billions per state and charge THAT to the people responsible.

Too much work to actually FIX a problem costing taxpayer money.
And to use the money saved to pay for health care.

Easier to go after taxpayers federally through the IRS to collect from compliant citizens who haven't committed any crimes.

And it would merely empower the States to handle their own prisons and health care if reforms were sought per State.

So this doesn't help any Democrats with national agenda to go after
prisons since that means recognizing State jurisdiction.

What is the Average Cost to House Inmates in Prison

ccording to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, the average annual cost of incarceration in Federal prisons in 2010 was $28,284 per inmate. That cost is reduced at the Federal Community Corrections Centers; in 2010 the annual cost was $25,838.

Using that data it costs the country about 46 and a half Billion a year to house inmates in the country. approximate.

To execute or not A question of cost - US news - Crime courts NBC News

Money.

Turns out, it is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them, according to a series of recent surveys. Tens of millions of dollars cheaper, politicians are learning, during a tumbling recession when nearly every state faces job cuts and massive deficits.

So an increasing number of them are considering abolishing capital punishment in favor of life imprisonment, not on principle but out of financial necessity.

"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.

Deep into retirement, he lost his faith in an eye for an eye and now speaks against it. What changed a mind so set on the ultimate punishment?

'Waste of time and money' California's legendarily slow appeals system, which produces an average wait of nearly 20 years from conviction to fatal injection — the longest in the nation. Of the nine convicted killers McCartin sent to death row, only one has died. Not by execution, but from a heart attack in custody.

"Every one of my cases is bogged up in the appellate system," said McCartin, who retired in 1993 after 15 years on the bench.

"It's a waste of time and money," said the 82-year-old, self-described right-wing Republican whose sonorous voice still commands attention. "The only thing it does is prolong the agony of the victims' families."

The States pay the Lion's share of the cost.................Look at the chart to Federal incarcerations per year and it's a small portion of the prison population.

The Federal data was for a ball park figure on cost per inmate using the Federal data hoping for an average cost for data purposes.

 

[Muhammed]

Well, I think it is a lot more complicated once you start to really think about it, about the implications, etc. It's really not so simple.

Complicated by what.......????!!!? WGTE Public Media Frank Stiles Evil Brothers February 12 2009 Toledo Public Library

The serial killers who kidnapped my friend, took her to an abandoned theater, tortured her, beat the hell out of her, mutilated her, raped her, shoved a metal bar up into her genital area until it stuck all the way through her alimentary tract, and then smashed her head?

That kind of complication?

 

[Muhammed]

The system is flawed and expensive only in that that those very obviously guilty are given endless rights of appeal. The Russian and Chinese protocol of putting a bullet in the back of the obvious convict's head is very efficient and cheap. The rest could go through a limited number of appeals processes to discern guilt.

What is wrong with that\?

Because we are citizens of the USA. The government works for US. They are not our dictators, and I certainly don't trust them with the power to kill citizens. That's just stupid.

i WOULD EXPECT NOTHING MORE THAN TO FLUSH THE TOILETS THAT WE CAN'T iNDIVIDUALLY. IT IS INCUMBENT ON GOVERNMENT.

You need to be able to think outside the box.

aS SH

Some things government does very well, other things not so well. The military falls in the first category.

The problem I have with the government executing people is the state runs the prosecution from arrest to the carrying out of sentences. Prosecutors pursue perfect conviction records meaning they are determined not to get to the truth, but to get the conviction. Every time. Putting the state in charge of killing somebody they set up to be convicted regardless of actual guilt to begin with comes very close to state sanctioned murder.

Deprived of the ability to kill the people it convicts, there is time to find the truth and have the conviction overturned. This happens a lot, especially with people who were convicted based on eyewitness account but exonerated by DNA evidence.

There are quite a few people who were found to be innocent. Why anyone thinks executing people is worth the risk, I don't know. Just blood thirsty people I guess. Killing is killing, IMO. I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to kill people who are no longer a threat to society. It's stupid, wasteful and barbaric.

I don't think someone who has committed a capital crime is ever "no longer a threat to society".

Just because they are sent to prison does not mean they cannot commit assaults or even murder. The Texas 7 for example.

Also, the most violent criminals often victimize other inmates and prison staff.

ANY prisoner can turn violent at any time. Poor rationalization. Face facts, the DP serves no real purpose except revenge.

People who commit violent crimes tend to commit more violent crimes.

Muhammed
if you get to the root of the anger and sickness this can be cured, even if someone is locked up for life.

By not overbooking prisons with nonviolent cases that can be treated,
we can reserve facilities for the truly dangerous people who shouldn't be released
as they are now due to lack of resources and limits to the laws.

If the laws were based on curing criminal sickness, then this could be
medically shown not to be safe to release someone. Similar to how cancer can be detected as deadly.
Criminal illness is like other diseases and can be diagnosed, treated and cured
instead of letting people randomly roam free until something violent happens and someone dies.

That's a terrible way to diagnose sickness, but that's what our system is doing right now.
Just setting itself up to fail, and letting sick people run free until they commit such a violent crime
it can be justified to lock them up or execute them or force them into commitment to mental institutions.

We need to perfect medical diagnosis and cure and quit playing guessing games when public safety is at stake.

I don't think so. I think your medical excuse is nothing but a bunch of BS.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I think it is a lot more complicated once you start to really think about it, about the implications, etc. It's really not so simple.

Complicated by what.......????!!!? WGTE Public Media Frank Stiles Evil Brothers February 12 2009 Toledo Public Library

The serial killers who kidnapped my friend, took her to an abandoned theater, tortured her, beat the hell out of her, mutilated her, raped her, shoved a metal bar up into her genital area until it stuck all the way through her alimentary tract, and then smashed her head?

That kind of complication?

And??? You are trying to base your argument on emotions. Sure, I get angry when I hear of some cases. The heinousness of the crime does not lend credence to the death penalty. ALL of the things I stated about it still stand, regardless of the heinousness of a specific crime.

LWOP is a completely valid option. Besides, once a person is dead, that's it! They aren't suffering anymore! Death is the EASY way out for these guys. In fact, some of them WANT to die. Really, what kind of people commit such crimes?

 

[ChrisL]

The system is flawed and expensive only in that that those very obviously guilty are given endless rights of appeal. The Russian and Chinese protocol of putting a bullet in the back of the obvious convict's head is very efficient and cheap. The rest could go through a limited number of appeals processes to discern guilt.

What is wrong with that\?

Because we are citizens of the USA. The government works for US. They are not our dictators, and I certainly don't trust them with the power to kill citizens. That's just stupid.

i WOULD EXPECT NOTHING MORE THAN TO FLUSH THE TOILETS THAT WE CAN'T iNDIVIDUALLY. IT IS INCUMBENT ON GOVERNMENT.

You need to be able to think outside the box.

aS SH

There are quite a few people who were found to be innocent. Why anyone thinks executing people is worth the risk, I don't know. Just blood thirsty people I guess. Killing is killing, IMO. I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to kill people who are no longer a threat to society. It's stupid, wasteful and barbaric.

I don't think someone who has committed a capital crime is ever "no longer a threat to society".

Just because they are sent to prison does not mean they cannot commit assaults or even murder. The Texas 7 for example.

Also, the most violent criminals often victimize other inmates and prison staff.

ANY prisoner can turn violent at any time. Poor rationalization. Face facts, the DP serves no real purpose except revenge.

People who commit violent crimes tend to commit more violent crimes.

Muhammed
if you get to the root of the anger and sickness this can be cured, even if someone is locked up for life.

By not overbooking prisons with nonviolent cases that can be treated,
we can reserve facilities for the truly dangerous people who shouldn't be released
as they are now due to lack of resources and limits to the laws.

If the laws were based on curing criminal sickness, then this could be
medically shown not to be safe to release someone. Similar to how cancer can be detected as deadly.
Criminal illness is like other diseases and can be diagnosed, treated and cured
instead of letting people randomly roam free until something violent happens and someone dies.

That's a terrible way to diagnose sickness, but that's what our system is doing right now.
Just setting itself up to fail, and letting sick people run free until they commit such a violent crime
it can be justified to lock them up or execute them or force them into commitment to mental institutions.

We need to perfect medical diagnosis and cure and quit playing guessing games when public safety is at stake.

I don't think so. I think your medical excuse is nothing but a bunch of BS.

IOW, you don't give a crap. You just want to live by your emotional knee jerk reactions instead of looking at the bigger picture, such as citizens rights, etc., and ignore those who are potentially innocent, even though you've been shown how prosecutors, police and judges can muck up a case. Think with your brain, not your emotions.

 

[alan1]

Well, we could go back and forth about that all day long. I would say it is an incentive to bring the crime to the next level so as to be sure they aren't caught. If they are going to get the same punishment as a murderer, why not murder the victim too? I honestly don't think that true violent criminals, are of sound mind to begin with and do not think like the rest of us.

For the most part I agree with the part in blue. The vast majority of society doesn't need laws against murder or other violent crimes for us to behave rationally and for the best interests of ourselves and our communities. The laws are there for the few that really don't think and behave like us. Personally, I think those are the ones that need to be removed from the gene pool.

The vast majority of rapists are not murderers. I'm not sure elevating the punishment would elevate the crime. The punishment for me exceeding the speed limit on my daily commute to work is greater (elevated) if I am 15 MPH over the speed limit than if I am 10 mph over the speed limit. That doesn't encentivise me to to exceed the speed limit by 15 mph as opposed to the 10 mph exceed that I commonly do. (Granted, this isn't a violent crime but I think the principles still apply)

Criminals are not completely stupid.
If a criminal knows that liqour store owner A has a habit of shooting people that attempt to rob him but that liquor store owner B (5 blocks away) has a habit of handing his cash register over to people that attempt to rob him then report it to the police, who do you think the criminal is more likely to attemp to rob?
It's also true that rapists don't want confrontation from their intended victims. A woman that fights back against a rapist is less likely to ultimately suffer a rape than one that acquieces out of fear. An armed woman (properly experienced with her defense weapon) is much safer than an unarmed woman.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, we could go back and forth about that all day long. I would say it is an incentive to bring the crime to the next level so as to be sure they aren't caught. If they are going to get the same punishment as a murderer, why not murder the victim too? I honestly don't think that true violent criminals, are of sound mind to begin with and do not think like the rest of us.

For the most part I agree with the part in blue. The vast majority of society doesn't need laws against murder or other violent crimes for us to behave rationally and for the best interests of ourselves and our communities. The laws are there for the few that really don't think and behave like us. Personally, I think those are the ones that need to be removed from the gene pool.

The vast majority of rapists are not murderers. I'm not sure elevating the punishment would elevate the crime. The punishment for me exceeding the speed limit on my daily commute to work is greater (elevated) if I am 15 MPH over the speed limit than if I am 10 mph over the speed limit. That doesn't encentivise me to to exceed the speed limit by 15 mph as opposed to the 10 mph exceed that I commonly do. (Granted, this isn't a violent crime but I think the principles still apply)

Criminals are not completely stupid.
If a criminal knows that liqour store owner A has a habit of shooting people that attempt to rob him but that liquor store owner B (5 blocks away) has a habit of handing his cash register over to people that attempt to rob him then report it to the police, who do you think the criminal is more likely to attemp to rob?
It's also true that rapists don't want confrontation from their intended victims. A woman that fights back against a rapist is less likely to ultimately suffer a rape than one that acquieces out of fear. An armed woman (properly experienced with her defense weapon) is much safer than an unarmed woman.

Yes, I think the biggest deterrent to crime is to have an armed populace. The criminal is not deterred by the DP because most criminals never intend to get caught, which is sometimes the reason WHY they kill, to avoid getting caught. This proves the DP is not a deterrent always but can sometimes actually be the cause of more murders. However, when you have an armed populace, the TARGETS of the criminal are now questionable for him. He now doesn't know who is armed and willing to shoot. Makes for a MUCH better deterrent, IMO.

Excerpt:

“It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect,” said Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. “The police department hasn’t changed a single tactic — they haven’t announced a shift in policy or of course — and yet you have these incredible numbers.”

Read more: Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry gun permit applications surge - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[alan1]

Yes, I think the biggest deterrent to crime is to have an armed populace.

Quit hitting on me.

The criminal is not deterred by the DP because most criminals never intend to get caught, which is sometimes the reason WHY they kill, to avoid getting caught. This proves the DP is not a deterrent always but can sometimes actually be the cause of more murders. However, when you have an armed populace, the TARGETS of the criminal are now questionable for him. He now doesn't know who is armed and willing to shoot. Makes for a MUCH better deterrent, IMO.

Excerpt:

“It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect,” said Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. “The police department hasn’t changed a single tactic — they haven’t announced a shift in policy or of course — and yet you have these incredible numbers.”

Read more: Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry gun permit applications surge - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Like I always say...........
I carry a gun because a police officer won't fit in my pocket.

On a more serious note, for the most part, police don't actually prevent crime, mostly they respond to crime and investigate after the fact. I prefer to not be a victim subject to the investigation after the fact.

 

[ChrisL]

Quit hitting on me.

If you insist.

Like I always say...........
I carry a gun because a police officer won't fit in my pocket.

On a more serious note, for the most part, police don't actually prevent crime, mostly they respond to crime and investigate after the fact. I prefer to not be a victim subject to the investigation after the fact.

Exactly my thoughts. Unfortunately, I don't have a gun. I've been thinking about it though. I live in a fairly safe neighborhood with neighbors very close by and thin walls. It couldn't hurt to have some extra added protection just in case though.

 

[MaryL]

Hi guys, I am a Scottish student conducting a dissertation on Capital Punishment in the USA, and as part of my research I'm investigating American attitudes towards the punishment. I've created a survey that I would really appreciate anyone to take part in, it only takes a few minutes and will give valuable data for me to use in my study. Thanks for any responses.

US Opinions of Capital Punishment Survey

Hi guys, I am a Scottish student conducting a dissertation on Capital Punishment in the USA, and as part of my research I'm investigating American attitudes towards the punishment. I've created a survey that I would really appreciate anyone to take part in, it only takes a few minutes and will give valuable data for me to use in my study. Thanks for any responses.

US Opinions of Capital Punishment Survey

Yeah, your a Scott? What about that headline I just read about "Scottish teen becomes ISIS bride"? Right, Scotts don't care about American attitudes on anything. And the name of that so-called "Scottish" girls name: Aqsa Mahmood. Look it up. Scotts better figure out what the hell is going on in Scotland before they want Americans opinions on anything.