good article on the case for the death penalty (1 Viewer)

[Red_Dave]

This is very unusal for me as im posting an article by an ultra-concervative and agreeing with it but heres an article that i feel sets out the case for the death penality very well. Thoughts welcome

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/23/do2301.xml

 

[Willravel]

After a few hours in the company of probation officers, criminologists, a few prototypes of what we now know as the Politically Correct Senior Policeman and various others from the rehabilitation industry, I realised I would probably feel less out of place at a Tibetan religious festival. It may be uncouth, but I always feel pronounced prickles of discomfort when in the presence of those who devote themselves to making the lives of the downright wicked as comfortable as possible.

This is a strawman argument already. The people of which the autohor speaks, those who are against the death penalty, are made out to be people who want the guilty to be comfortable. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Has anyone here ever been to a maximum secutiry prison? I may not have ever been sentenced, but I have visited such places on several occasions. A prisoner is not made to be comfortable. A vast majority of anti-death penalty people, myself included, believe in life sentences. These wicked will not be on couches watching Sex in the City eating Pringles. They are in a tiny room with a sink and a bed. This is justice for the wrong that they've done. This article is only a reiteration of very old arguments (I'm not implying my arguments on this are new). I think capitol punishment is vengence, you think it's justice. I'll vote my way, and you can vote your way. God bless America, a place that allows the average citizen to add his or her input into our government.

 

[Stace]

I guess I'm a typical liberal in that, I don't agree with the death penalty, but I'm pro choice when it comes to abortion. I just don't see how you justify killing someone because they killed someone else. Because then, shouldn't the person that pulled the switch/injected the poison/etc. be killed for killing the person that killed someone else (haha, remind you of The House That Jack Built much?) Anyway, the New York Times did a study and found that homicide rates were actually 48-101% higher in states that had the death penalty....so obviously, it's not much of a deterrent.

I think killing murderers is letting them off easy....let them rot in prison where they have to think about why they're there every single day.

 

[paulmarkj]

Afterwards, however, I was approached by a meek, mild little gentleman, who turned out to be a Professor of Ethics at one of America's leading universities, and an adviser retained by the police departments of several major cities. He wanted to apologise to me for not having spoken up in my support, but explained that he had felt intimidated by the weight of liberal opinion engulfing us.

As we shook hands and I urged him not to be concerned, he told me a story. "Of course capital punishment works. In China recently they had a drug problem. One day, they took out 6,000 drug dealers and shot them in the back of the head. The result: they don't now have a drug problem."

So why do China have to execute thousands of people every year? Because it is not a deterrent. The fact is, they still have a drugs problem!

Simom Heffer is a right wing bigot who is full of opinion but short on facts. The only way he can produce a fact is by quoting an unnamed source. He tries to make the soruce believable by making him out to be 'meek' and 'mild' and'ontimidated'. How do we know that this prof isn't a right wing bigot as well? In what is he a professor?

He knows that his views are not taken seruiously, so he disguises them as a learned person's views.

 

[Billo_Really]

Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty
7. The deterrence argument
Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded: ". . .it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment."

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 230)

8. Effect of abolition on crime rates
Reviewing the evidence on the relation between changes in the use of the death penalty and homicide rates, a study conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002 stated: "The fact that the statistics continue to point in the same direction is persuasive evidence that countries need not fear sudden and serious changes in the curve of crime if they reduce their reliance upon the death penalty".

Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2003, 27 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.73 per 100,000 population, 44 per cent lower than in 1975 and the lowest rate in three decades.

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 214)

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

The death penalty needs to be abolished in this country. If nothing else, it would save a few bucks. Because it costs more to put someone to death than it would to lock them up for life. And after the 122 people that were released from death row, the chances of executing the innocent are far to great. Plus, it is not administered equally. It is a racially, class biased punishment.

 

[kal-el]

The death penalty needs to be abolished in this country. If nothing else, it would save a few bucks. Because it costs more to put someone to death than it would to lock them up for life. And after the 122 people that were released from death row, the chances of executing the innocent are far to great. Plus, it is not administered equally. It is a racially, class biased punishment.

Yep. I'd say if you are for the death penalty, you're for killing innocents.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by kal-el:
Yep. I'd say if you are for the death penalty, you're for killing innocents.

And for killing the racially innocent at that.

 

[tryreading]

I guess I'm a typical liberal in that, I don't agree with the death penalty, but I'm pro choice when it comes to abortion. I just don't see how you justify killing someone because they killed someone else. Because then, shouldn't the person that pulled the switch/injected the poison/etc. be killed for killing the person that killed someone else (haha, remind you of The House That Jack Built much?) Anyway, the New York Times did a study and found that homicide rates were actually 48-101% higher in states that had the death penalty....so obviously, it's not much of a deterrent.

I think killing murderers is letting them off easy....let them rot in prison where they have to think about why they're there every single day.

B.O. is right, he said it costs more to execute than to imprison for life. And another thing, most of the people sentenced to death don't get executed. A North Carolina study showed that only slightly over 10% of them are actually put to death.

 

[Chris]

Death penalty advocates need to stop wasting their time pushing a form of punishment that is consistently shown to have no co-relation to crime rates. I believe that most pro-death penalty people are well meaning, but are looking for a solution in the wrong place.

If people want to reduce crime rates they should concentrate on preventing people from resorting to crime in the first place. People could invest more in inner city youth programs to reduce the chances of people resorting to selling drugs or stealing to support themselves. Help the less fortunate help themselves by giving them a fair chance to succeed in life.

I'm all for trying to reform criminals where possible, however I believe that there should be more focus on giving them the tools to make it on the outside. Someone who sells drugs or whatever probably has few if any real job skills. There should be more emphasis on gaining valuable work skills in addition to good behavior when a prisoner is up for parole review. Locking someone up for a few years than sending them back into the world no-better able to support themselves does a disservice to them and the community at large.

 

[Chris]

hey Billo Really, you happen to have a link about the death penalty costing more than life in prison?

 

[assassinatedpres20]

If you have a child think bout this. In the middle of the night you are waken up by a screaming child and you realize it is yours. You run into the room just to see broken glass and your child missing. Weeks later your child's dead body is found floating down a river. By conclusive DNA evidence the murderer is found, what, in your opinion, is a fitting punishment for him?

The Death Penalty is a good thing to have. However, it does need to be completely re-written in states that allow it. If it were used right, it would be effective.
Not to offend or flame, but why is the first reason to get rid of something always - "It's rascist!!!" ?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by assassinatedpres20:
If you have a child think bout this. In the middle of the night you are waken up by a screaming child and you realize it is yours. You run into the room just to see broken glass and your child missing. Weeks later your child's dead body is found floating down a river. By conclusive DNA evidence the murderer is found, what, in your opinion, is a fitting punishment for him?

The Death Penalty is a good thing to have. However, it does need to be completely re-written in states that allow it. If it were used right, it would be effective.
Not to offend or flame, but why is the first reason to get rid of something always - "It's rascist!!!" ?

Anyone that does any research into this subject will find that this is soley a racially biased and class biased punishment. It is not administered equally across the board. 116 people have been set free from death row that would have been executed. Is killing the murderer of that little girl worth more than the deaths of 116 innocent people?

 

[tryreading]

hey Billo Really, you happen to have a link about the death penalty costing more than life in prison?

Finally, the extra costs per actual execution, assuming a 10% actual execution rate is $2.16 million. This number can be lowered somewhat by assuming a higher rate of executions than history would indicate. If the rate were an unprecedented 30%, for example, the extra cost per execution would be $780,000.

http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/dpn/spring00/blum.html

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Chris
hey Billo Really, you happen to have a link about the death penalty costing more than life in prison?

Originally Posted by tryreading
Finally, the extra costs per actual execution, assuming a 10% actual execution rate is $2.16 million. This number can be lowered somewhat by assuming a higher rate of executions than history would indicate. If the rate were an unprecedented 30%, for example, the extra cost per execution would be $780,000.

http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/dpn/spring00/blum.html

Does that about do it for you Chris? Or do you still want something from me?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

The best argument I know for the death penalty in theory, is that life in prison would actually be worse for the convict than would a lethal injection, or another, more humane execution, if one has an issue with the needle. This depends upon one's views of prisons, of course: if one is of the opinion that a murderer needs to suffer the harshest possible punishment, and that life in prison is that, then so long as one's conscience is clear in terms of the 8th Amendment (which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment"), so be it. If one sees prisons as a place to rehabilitate criminals, it must be seen that there are criminals that would be impossible to rehabilitate; these would rationally include habitual offenders, and those who commit the most heinous crimes - i.e., those who would be targets for the death penalty now. If we allow these unrepentant criminals to stay within the system for twenty, thirty, forty years, imagine the damage they could do within the penal system, committing further atrocities behind bars, and spreading hate and a criminal mindset to all of the prisoners who might be rehabilitated. Wouldn't society be better served by removing these people from it? Wouldn't they be better served by a quick and merciful death?
All of this is only an argument in theory; in practice, it is quite clear that the death penalty is not imposed in a fair or unbiased manner. It is a racist, elitist, fallible system; there should be a moratorium on executions until the problems are worked out, if they can be. But if they could be worked out, how many of us would still oppose the death penalty?
If the death penalty were used "properly," inasmuch as it would be imposed consistently and objectively, would you still oppose it?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by CoffeeSaint:
The best argument I know for the death penalty in theory, is that life in prison would actually be worse for the convict than would a lethal injection, or another, more humane execution, if one has an issue with the needle. This depends upon one's views of prisons, of course: if one is of the opinion that a murderer needs to suffer the harshest possible punishment, and that life in prison is that, then so long as one's conscience is clear in terms of the 8th Amendment (which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment"), so be it. If one sees prisons as a place to rehabilitate criminals, it must be seen that there are criminals that would be impossible to rehabilitate; these would rationally include habitual offenders, and those who commit the most heinous crimes - i.e., those who would be targets for the death penalty now. If we allow these unrepentant criminals to stay within the system for twenty, thirty, forty years, imagine the damage they could do within the penal system, committing further atrocities behind bars, and spreading hate and a criminal mindset to all of the prisoners who might be rehabilitated. Wouldn't society be better served by removing these people from it? Wouldn't they be better served by a quick and merciful death?
All of this is only an argument in theory; in practice, it is quite clear that the death penalty is not imposed in a fair or unbiased manner. It is a racist, elitist, fallible system; there should be a moratorium on executions until the problems are worked out, if they can be. But if they could be worked out, how many of us would still oppose the death penalty?
If the death penalty were used "properly," inasmuch as it would be imposed consistently and objectively, would you still oppose it?

Even if they could work out all the bugs, it does nothing to address the problem of why we have murders in the first place.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Even if they could work out all the bugs, it does nothing to address the problem of why we have murders in the first place.

No, but is that necessarily the goal? More to the point, does anything in our penal system address this issue? I don't believe so, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a penal system. We need a way to remove criminals from society, while also trying to solve the problems that made them criminals; however, alleviating ghettoization in the major cities will not make today's criminals change their ways. We have to do both, and the suggestion is that a true attempt to rehabilitate would have to recognize that there are those who cannot be reformed. Otherwise, wouldn't our prison system remind you of some bizarre version of No Child Left Behind? Look how well that concept is working in the schools . . .

Would the death penalty, properly enforced, be a reasonable solution for those criminals who should never be released back into society?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by CoffeeSaint:
No, but is that necessarily the goal? More to the point, does anything in our penal system address this issue? I don't believe so, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a penal system. We need a way to remove criminals from society, while also trying to solve the problems that made them criminals; however, alleviating ghettoization in the major cities will not make today's criminals change their ways. We have to do both, and the suggestion is that a true attempt to rehabilitate would have to recognize that there are those who cannot be reformed. Otherwise, wouldn't our prison system remind you of some bizarre version of No Child Left Behind? Look how well that concept is working in the schools . . .

Would the death penalty, properly enforced, be a reasonable solution for those criminals who should never be released back into society?

I'm not for the killing of anyone.

 

[paulmarkj]

If you have a child think bout this. In the middle of the night you are waken up by a screaming child and you realize it is yours. You run into the room just to see broken glass and your child missing. Weeks later your child's dead body is found floating down a river. By conclusive DNA evidence the murderer is found, what, in your opinion, is a fitting punishment for him?

The Death Penalty is a good thing to have. However, it does need to be completely re-written in states that allow it. If it were used right, it would be effective.
Not to offend or flame, but why is the first reason to get rid of something always - "It's rascist!!!" ?

Fitting punishment: life imprisonment.

I don't think you are flaming, but it is very glib and simplistic just to say: "The Death Penalty is a good thing to have." There are many issues to be considered. Not least the fact the DNA evidence is not 100% accurate.

There was a case only last month of a man who was 'in the frame' for a crime because his DNA was found at the scene. Only problem was, lucky for him, he was in prison at the time.

 

[jamesrage]

Finally, the extra costs per actual execution, assuming a 10% actual execution rate is $2.16 million. This number can be lowered somewhat by assuming a higher rate of executions than history would indicate. If the rate were an unprecedented 30%, for example, the extra cost per execution would be $780,000.

http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/dpn/spring00/blum.html

Prisons are being over crowed,so new prisons have to be built.http://www.sumeria.net/politics/IIB.html
Quote:
On average, it costs $20,000 per year to maintain one prisoner, $100,000 to build a single prison cell, and $20,000 per year to staff a prison cell.

If these numbers are correct and someone serves a life sentence of 45 year and the time value of money is not taken into account the overall cost per lifer is $1,800,000 .

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...9&postcount=64

$2,912,445.24 to execute someone 2005
This one goes further than 2005.
.http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html

So if I stick your ass behind bars for 45 years, lets see what the gradual cost would be verse executing convicting you right now and executing you in ten years.
$40,000 for the year 2005 to house one inmate
$40,800.00 for the year 2006
$41,697.60 for the year 2007
$42,614.94 for the year 2008
$43,552.47 for the year 2009
$44,510.63 for the year 2010
$45,489.86 for the year 2011
$46,490.64 for the year 2012
$47,513.43 for the year 2013
$48,558.73 for the year 2014
$49,627.02 for the year 2015
$51,115.83 for the year 2016
$52,649.30 for the year 2017
$54,228.78 for the year 2018
$55,855.65 for the year 2019
$57,531.32 for the year 2020
$59,257.26 for the year 2021
$61,034.97 for the year 2022
$62,866.02 for the year 2023
$64,752.00 for the year 2024
$66,694.56 for the year 2025
$68,695.40 for the year 2026
$70,756.26 for the year 2027
$72,878.95 for the year 2028
$75,065.32 for the year 2029
$77,317.28 for the year 2030
$79,636.80 for the year 2031
$82,025.90 for the year 2032
$84,486.68 for the year 2033
$87,021.28 for the year 2034
$89,631.92 for the year 2035
$92,320.88 for the year 2036
$95,090.50 for the year 2037
$97,943.22 for the year 2038
$100,881.52 for the year 2039
$103,907.96 for the year 2040
$107,025.20 for the year 2041
$110,235.96 for the year 2042
$113,543.03 for the year 2043
$116,949.33 for the year 2044
$120,457.81 for the year 2045
$124,071.54 for the year 2046
$127,793.69 for the year 2047
$131,627.50 for the year 2048
$135,576.32 for the year 2049
$139,643.61 for the year 2050

$3503074.70 rough estimate for total cost between 2005 and 2050 for housing a lifer.


Either you look at the shrot term cost or the long term cost.

 

[tryreading]

Prisons are being over crowed,so new prisons have to be built.http://www.sumeria.net/politics/IIB.html
Quote:
On average, it costs $20,000 per year to maintain one prisoner, $100,000 to build a single prison cell, and $20,000 per year to staff a prison cell.

If these numbers are correct and someone serves a life sentence of 45 year and the time value of money is not taken into account the overall cost per lifer is $1,800,000 .

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...9&postcount=64

$2,912,445.24 to execute someone 2005
This one goes further than 2005.
.http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html

So if I stick your ass behind bars for 45 years, lets see what the gradual cost would be verse executing convicting you right now and executing you in ten years.
$40,000 for the year 2005 to house one inmate
$40,800.00 for the year 2006
$41,697.60 for the year 2007
$42,614.94 for the year 2008
$43,552.47 for the year 2009
$44,510.63 for the year 2010
$45,489.86 for the year 2011
$46,490.64 for the year 2012
$47,513.43 for the year 2013
$48,558.73 for the year 2014
$49,627.02 for the year 2015
$51,115.83 for the year 2016
$52,649.30 for the year 2017
$54,228.78 for the year 2018
$55,855.65 for the year 2019
$57,531.32 for the year 2020
$59,257.26 for the year 2021
$61,034.97 for the year 2022
$62,866.02 for the year 2023
$64,752.00 for the year 2024
$66,694.56 for the year 2025
$68,695.40 for the year 2026
$70,756.26 for the year 2027
$72,878.95 for the year 2028
$75,065.32 for the year 2029
$77,317.28 for the year 2030
$79,636.80 for the year 2031
$82,025.90 for the year 2032
$84,486.68 for the year 2033
$87,021.28 for the year 2034
$89,631.92 for the year 2035
$92,320.88 for the year 2036
$95,090.50 for the year 2037
$97,943.22 for the year 2038
$100,881.52 for the year 2039
$103,907.96 for the year 2040
$107,025.20 for the year 2041
$110,235.96 for the year 2042
$113,543.03 for the year 2043
$116,949.33 for the year 2044
$120,457.81 for the year 2045
$124,071.54 for the year 2046
$127,793.69 for the year 2047
$131,627.50 for the year 2048
$135,576.32 for the year 2049
$139,643.61 for the year 2050

$3503074.70 rough estimate for total cost between 2005 and 2050 for housing a lifer.


Either you look at the shrot term cost or the long term cost.

You posted this silly math before. It was wrong then, is wrong now:

A study authorized by Duke University in 1993 found that for each person executed in North Carolina the State paid over $2 million more than it would have cost to imprison him for life, in part because of court proceedings.

http://www.manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2004-12-15.htm

You should read this. Its an excellent essay by the Manhattan district attorney.

 

[jamesrage]

You posted this silly math before. It was wrong then, is wrong now:

A study authorized by Duke University in 1993 found that for each person executed in North Carolina the State paid over $2 million more than it would have cost to imprison him for life, in part because of court proceedings.

http://www.manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2004-12-15.htm

You should read this. Its an excellent essay by the Manhattan district attorney.

Those numbers are based a year by year inflation rate of 2.2%.It does not take into account that material,food or any other things may have a higher or lower inflation rate of other things in those years.If you are going to consider the cost of incarcerating someone for life verses exectuing someone then inflation must be taken into account.

 

[tryreading]

Those numbers are based a year by year inflation rate of 2.2%.It does not take into account that material,food or any other things may have a higher or lower inflation rate of other things in those years.If you are going to consider the cost of incarcerating someone for life verses exectuing someone then inflation must be taken into account.

You have to take into account that once convicted and sentenced, the felon will spend ten years or so in prison anyway during the rest of the legal process, like appeals.

 

[Billo_Really]

The deck is already stacked against the accused in any capitol crime case because no one that is against capitol punishment is allowed to be on a jury. Every juror member in capitol cases approves of the death penalty. So a person that is against the death penalty cannot logically deduce guilt or innocence in one of these cases?

 

[talloulou]

The death penalty is barbaric and just as we have advanced enough to give up crucifixions, stonings, throwing to the lions, ect we will eventually stop the barbaric practice of killing prisoners.

The article is stupid in that it seems to suggest that the death penalty works as a suitable deterrant to others who would be criminals. First, I'm not sure statistics prove this theory to be true. Second, even if it were true it does not mean we should do it.

If I chopped off my daughter's hand cause she stole something she might never steal again. Does that mean I SHOULD chop off her hand for stealing?

Barbaric practices slowly drop away as society advances...