Is the death penalty more cruel than life in prison?

[Jerm]

Please voice your opinoins. I personally think that life in prison is harsher if less economically friendly. I also think that the GOV is too soft in dealing out the death penalty. Murder should more often lead to the death penalty, in my opinion, but thats another story.

 

[millsy]

Please voice your opinoins. I personally think that life in prison is harsher if less economically friendly. I also think that the GOV is too soft in dealing out the death penalty. Murder should more often lead to the death penalty, in my opinion, but thats another story.

In any kind of sane society (where court trials aren't just tribunals that last 5 minutes) it's going to cost more to the government to kill someone than it will to keep him alive.

 

[C.J.]

In any kind of sane society (where court trials aren't just tribunals that last 5 minutes) it's going to cost more to the government to kill someone than it will to keep him alive.

That's seems a very subjective statement. There are studies (Which depending on study guidelines), some of which show DP cases cost more while others show LIP cases cost more once a conclusion to a case is reached.

According to amnestyUSA, the median cost of a capital crime carried through to an execution is approximately $1.26 million, while a LIP (DP equivalent)case cost averages $.74 million through the end of incarceration.

Most data I have seen estimates the cost of a LIP (DP equivalent) trial at approximately $75000, leaving $665,000 to house, feed, cloth, provide medical care, etc. With costs ranging from $30-50,000 per year this works out (On average) to approximately 22.1 years to 13.3 years respectively. While some do die in prison (Which helps keep this average down), in many states one can be released after ten years or so while serving a LIP sentence (For a DP equivalent crime), which appears to be the main reason the average stay in prison for one serving LIP (DP equivalent case) is so low. In many instances, it appears that LIP has already been abolished.

The DP itself, on a state level is a state issue, which has been complicated by seemingly endless appeals and delaying tactics, through both the state and federal systems. Appeals are not usually based on innocence, but rather are a (Most are automatic in DP cases) process reviewing the procedural process. The answer to any cost issue, is to limit appeals mainly to issues of innocence vs guilt. This doesn't mean that procedural problems should not be addressed, but 10-15 years to review the trial process procedures of a trial which lasted a few days or a few weeks is somewhat ridiculous.

Regards,

"C.J."

 

[millsy]

LIP cases cost more once a conclusion to a case is reached.

I would never debate this, seems pretty obvious

According to amnestyUSA, the median cost of a capital crime carried through to an execution is approximately $1.26 million, while a LIP (DP equivalent)case cost averages $.74 million through the end of incarceration.

so it costs more?

 

[mikhail]

The cost obvously depends on the criminals age.

to be honest it makes me sick to my stomach the amount spent on looking after some of the real scum in prisons.

However when someone is killed for a crime they didnt commit its got to be one of the worst things ever.

Therefor i would reluctently say in alot of cases its best the death penalty isnt used.

But why dont western countries send there criminals to iraq to rebuild it for free if they get killed there is no legal repercussions they dont need paying other than food and board they cant escape by plane and will stick out pretty easy besides the fact they will not want to wander off.Bes

Best of all they are really paying for their crimes by helping humanity proberly more rehabilitating than prison.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Which is more cruel-- hunting or factory farming?

I think they're comparable.

 

[C.J.]

so it costs more?

It depends on the number of years actually served under a LIP sentence and the cost per year. The high figure of $50,000+- per year year is used by the pro-DP folks, justified by the use of more secure containment for DP equivalent lifers, and the lower $30,000+- is used by the anti DP folks and is justified by putting DP equivalent lifers in the general prison population.

LIP for example:
$.74 million less $75,000 trial costs=$665,000 @ $30,000 per year= 22.1 years, less ($520,000) than the cost of DP @$1.26 million. It would take another 17.3 years (Totaling 39.4 years) to reach the cost of the DP.


$.74 million less $75,000 trial costs=$665,000 @ $50,000 per year= 13.3 years, less ($520,000) than the cost of DP@$1.26 million. It would take another 10.4 years (Totaling 23.7 years) to reach the cost of the DP.

Regards,

"C.J."

 

[C.J.]

I would never debate this, seems pretty obvious

Using part of a statement out of context isn't debating.

"There are studies (Which depending on study guidelines), some of which show DP cases cost more while others show LIP cases cost more once a conclusion to a case is reached."

Regards,

"C.J."

 

[millsy]

Using part of a statement out of context isn't debating.

"There are studies (Which depending on study guidelines), some of which show DP cases cost more while others show LIP cases cost more once a conclusion to a case is reached."

Regards,

"C.J."

I used the second part of your statement as a quote. I left out the first part because it was the part in which you and I were in agreement already. I didn't feel the need to agree with you agreeing with me. If chopping your statement angered you, trust me, I won't make that mistake again.

 

[C.J.]

I used the second part of your statement as a quote. I left out the first part because it was the part in which you and I were in agreement already. I didn't feel the need to agree with you agreeing with me. If chopping your statement angered you, trust me, I won't make that mistake again.

Anger me? You posted it as if to say that you and I agree that "LIP cases cost more once a conclusion to a case is reached," than DP cases, which is not necessarily the case. There is "just" enough data available to confuse the issue, and allow proponents of either side to use it to draw conclusions for their side.

If I misinterpreted your intent, I apologize.

Regards,

"C.J."

 

[MCS117]

My idea is the punishment must fit the crime. If they murdered someone, its automatically death sentence, especially if it's premeditated. If its involuntary manslaughter, it should just be life in prison. Many people believe murderers would have a change in heart when they go to prison; however, they won't be all good little angels by going to prison. Life in prison is also draining our money to maintain these criminals. I would prob get a 9mill and just shoot all those murderers in the head and I'll save probably millions of dollars per inmate at an expense of the bullet. We even designed an injection to kill them. Opium can be used to kill people if the dose is high enough and it has a rewarding effect while you die. You can die happy and without pain.

 

[millsy]

My idea is the punishment must fit the crime. If they murdered someone, its automatically death sentence, especially if it's premeditated. If its involuntary manslaughter, it should just be life in prison. Many people believe murderers would have a change in heart when they go to prison; however, they won't be all good little angels by going to prison. Life in prison is also draining our money to maintain these criminals. I would prob get a 9mill and just shoot all those murderers in the head and I'll save probably millions of dollars per inmate at an expense of the bullet. We even designed an injection to kill them. Opium can be used to kill people if the dose is high enough and it has a rewarding effect while you die. You can die happy and without pain.

Heck, why even bother with a trial? It's not like the police are going to arrest an innocent person. In fact we can save a lot of money by doing away with judges and courts all together. Just let the police decide what punishment the guilty person (cause if they weren't guilty the police wouldn't arrest them) should get, and then give it to them right there.

 

[MCS117]

Heck, why even bother with a trial? It's not like the police are going to arrest an innocent person. In fact we can save a lot of money by doing away with judges and courts all together. Just let the police decide what punishment the guilty person (cause if they weren't guilty the police wouldn't arrest them) should get, and then give it to them right there.

So the fair trail would be thrown out the windows when we start killing murderers? Why do we have to give trails? Because they will be declared innocent or guilty for their crimes. If guilty, they get shot. Simple as that. If innocent, they are sent free. Simple as that.

 

[millsy]

So the fair trail would be thrown out the windows when we start killing murderers? Why do we have to give trails? Because they will be declared innocent or guilty for their crimes. If guilty, they get shot. Simple as that. If innocent, they are sent free. Simple as that.

I was being facetious. He was talking about drastically shortening trials.

 

[Jay R]

Please voice your opinoins. I personally think that life in prison is harsher if less economically friendly.

This answers the question. The state is responsible for efficiently dispensing justice to criminals. It has not have (Certainly should not have) an interest in drawing out tortuous sentences for the sake of sadism. How 'cruel' the punishment is is an irrelevance, only whether it is fitting for the crime and efficient to the state.
Punishment should be cold and calculated.

'Life' in prison is a bit of a nonsense once you apply cold logic and the cost equation to it. In just the same way as death for lesser offences is dumb. Remember that at one point (Late 17th early 18th century) you could face execution for just about anything in Britain and juries would let people off because they didn't want to kill them for stealing sheep (A serious business for the Welsh )

Very long term incarcerations (25+ years), Old prisoners serving long terms (possibly with failing health), Violent offenders (Willfully caused death or serious injury, brain damage etc), Serious repeat offenders (Rapists, Child abusers), Foreigners who commit serious crimes whose own nations refuse to accept them, these are all potential candidates for execution as an economic efficiency.

I also think that the GOV is too soft in dealing out the death penalty. Murder should more often lead to the death penalty, in my opinion, but thats another story.

UK doesn't use it at all and our courts don't have the possibility to advocate it, so I can't offer much perspective on the US use of capital punishment. I'd certainly vote for its reintroduction over here though.

 

[millsy]

.Very long term incarcerations (25+ years), Old prisoners serving long terms (possibly with failing health), Violent offenders (Willfully caused death or serious injury, brain damage etc), Serious repeat offenders (Rapists, Child abusers), Foreigners who commit serious crimes whose own nations refuse to accept them, these are all potential candidates for execution as an economic efficiency

It isn't cheaper though.

 

[skg]

in dealing with criminals, i think we should state our priorities:

1- is to protect people who haven't desecrated other people rights.

then

2- try to solve the root of crimes . to reduce or eliminate crimes and protect others from making crimes.

then


3- giving the punishment that not affected on priority number one or number 2.


IN my opinion : THE rights of a man who haven't desecrated others right, is worth more than all the criminals rights. Don't you agree with that???

 

[Jay R]

It isn't cheaper though.

I've given you my opinion on that elsewhere (in the Death penalty is racist thread) Keeping a person fed, healthy, and incarcerated under guard in a purpose built facility (even for as little as a week) is more expensive than putting a noose around their neck and kicking a chair out from under them. That is unequivocal fact.
The death penalty is only excessively costly due to innefficiency in its employment, largely because of the amount of appeals and death row incarceration permitted to try and placate bleeding hearts such as yourself. I've already stated that the state should take responsibility for investigating alternative evidence to speed the appeals process, again in another response to your posts.

 

[MSgt]

It may surprise many of you who know me (or at have at least read my posts), but I am quite undecided about the death penalty.

 

[talloulou]

It may surprise many of you who know me (or at have at least read my posts), but I am quite undecided about the death penalty.

I don't like the death penalty. I'd have no problem killing someone who was trying to kill me or mine. But once the person is caught and behind bars it seems weak and cowardly to kill them. Better that we study them and try to figure out what makes them tick. Maybe we can learn how to move society in a direction that won't create quite so many inmates.

 

[MSgt]

I don't like the death penalty. I'd have no problem killing someone who was trying to kill me or mine. But once the person is caught and behind bars it seems weak and cowardly to kill them. Better that we study them and try to figure out what makes them tick. Maybe we can learn how to move society in a direction that won't create quite so many inmates.

I believe the goal of every society, on the path of progression, should be to humanize religion, practice responsible toleration, and achieve a perfectly fair and impartial judicial system with a prison program that actually "rehabilitates." America has always done best on frontiers, from our own west through technological frontiers to our pioneering of the society of the future, in which gender, racial, and religious equality increasingly prevail.

On the Arab peninsula and in the rest of the Muslim world, we see public executions in the form of hangings, beheadings, and shootings. Other public displays of barbaric disciplines entail the hacking off of limbs and blindings. We shun this. Now look north.... We cast praises upon Turkey, as well we should. It's current realizations and acknowledgments of their past self-destructive state has allowed them to finally face forward. They are on the threshold - and in some cases already across the threshold - of genuine reforms and profound cultural changes. They have finally realized that by embracing their Kurds, instead of shunning them, they will see quicker progression for their country as a whole. They have even abolished capitol punishment. This is an outstanding feat for a Muslim country, yet we as the "light" of human and governmental progress still find comfort in the death penalty. Of course, to be fair, our civilizations are different and their people have not spent the last 100 years celebrating the type of unrestrictive freedom ours have (all things come at a price).

We, as a nation, have not yet achieved our full potential, but we are on the correct path. After our women achieved equality in our nation, our society unleashed a creative power not seen before. All of a sudden, instead of half, all of our civilization was allowed the opportunity to contribute to our futures. Later came the civil rights movement, which increased our human potential. It is in our very nature to embrace the tools necessary for prosperity and progression. "Capital Punishment" just doesn't fit into where we are headed.

 

[millsy]

I've given you my opinion on that elsewhere (in the Death penalty is racist thread) Keeping a person fed, healthy, and incarcerated under guard in a purpose built facility (even for as little as a week) is more expensive than putting a noose around their neck and kicking a chair out from under them. That is unequivocal fact.
The death penalty is only excessively costly due to innefficiency in its employment, largely because of the amount of appeals and death row incarceration permitted to try and placate bleeding hearts such as yourself. I've already stated that the state should take responsibility for investigating alternative evidence to speed the appeals process, again in another response to your posts.

No matter how many ifs ands and buts you put in, you can't say that you should execute people to save money.


UNTIL the day the death penalty is cheaper you can not say that keeping prisoners alive costs too much.

 

[Jay R]

No matter how many ifs ands and buts you put in, you can't say that you should execute people to save money.

Yes I can, its an opinion. My opinion, not clouded be ridiculous sentimentality for the scum of, certainly my society, if not the Earth in general. I can say it and I will say it. You don't like it that's fine with me, that's your opinion. This however...

UNTIL the day the death penalty is cheaper you can not say that keeping prisoners alive costs too much.

:roll: As previously stated, I've demonstrated it can be cheaper, thus I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion (that word again) that keeping certain criminals incarcerated is a waste of money.

Keeping a person fed, healthy, and incarcerated under guard in a purpose built facility (even for as little as a week) is more expensive than putting a noose around their neck and kicking a chair out from under them. That is unequivocal fact.

If you can adequately argue that my statement quoted above is factually incorrect I will be very impressed. The death penalty may not be cheap where you are, but it very easily could be. Once again the cost is related to an inefficient system, not the actual punishment.

I'm happy to agree to disagree on this, because you're a confessed Liberal, I know you ain't gonna have an attack of impartial logic in relation to this particular topic, that doesn't particularly bother me. I have no qualms with the death penalty, only that I'm denied my democratic right to vote for its return.

Lastly, I'm dissappointed you never replied to this, Originally posted in skg's thread:

Try to ignore millsy, he's a militant liberal (an, amusing oxymoron), if he came home one day to find his male relatives murdered and criminals gang-raping his female relatives of all ages, before paralyzing him in an assault, anally-raping him, stealing his car and his beer, and finishing off by running down a dozen school children then killing eight police in a shootout, he would still oppose giving them the death penalty. What'cha say millsy?

You don’t mind me reposting it do you?:smile:

 

[Independent Patriot]

Please voice your opinoins. I personally think that life in prison is harsher if less economically friendly. I also think that the GOV is too soft in dealing out the death penalty. Murder should more often lead to the death penalty, in my opinion, but thats another story.

On the subject of which one is more harsh I believe LIP is. That is personally why I am against the death penalty. I think seeing your death coming is actually a luxury. Sure they are probably scared during all of the events leading up to it, but then it is over. I think LIP with hard labor is a better way to go.

 

[millsy]

Yes I can, its an opinion. My opinion, not clouded be ridiculous sentimentality for the scum of, certainly my society, if not the Earth in general. I can say it and I will say it. You don't like it that's fine with me, that's your opinion. This however...

It is not an opinion. The death penalty costs more. That's not an opinion. YOUR OPINION is, the death penalty SHOULD BE cheaper. And I am not disagreeing with that. But everytime you say that we should kill prisoners in order to save money, I am going to tell you that you don't actually save money. It isn't opinion.

As previously stated, I've demonstrated it can be cheaper, thus I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion (that word again) that keeping certain criminals incarcerated is a waste of money

You have demonstrated how it COULD be cheaper. Until it is, saying that incarcerating people is a waste of money is a false statement.

If you can adequately argue that my statement quoted above is factually incorrect I will be very impressed. The death penalty may not be cheap where you are, but it very easily could be. Once again the cost is related to an inefficient system, not the actual punishment.

Of course I can't, and the day that the system is like that my argument will be completely invalid. Until that day however, it is yours that can't stand up.