[kiosokkn]

This topic was partially inspired by the 'Tookie' thread. However, I would like to narrow the scope a bit on this question...

Do you believe that the death penalty is justifiable if people are ever wrongly condemned? In other words, let's say that for every 100 people sentenced to die, 99 of them are guilty of the crimes for which they are convicted, and one person is innocent. Does the 'good' done by the death penalty outweigh the occasional execution of an innocent person?

I think your questions have narrowed the scope a little too much. Technology is advancing in the field of forensics, and as it is progressing, we are likely to see less and less innocent people on death row. If these scientific methods provide substantial information to convict a criminal, then they provide substantial information to justify death.

[evennyNiz]

Why can other Western countries live without the death penalty? Why do we insist on having it?

Ben

Vengence sells well. That's what Iraq was all about - vengence for 9/11. The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 was irrelevant. Kicking Iraqi butt sure made America feel good post 9/11.

[Bgfbukpf]

Put simply, if even one innocent person dies, the system is broken and should not be used. I don't feel it is needed.

Ben

Don't you think this logic is a little ridiculous? The penal system in the United States isn't perfect, should we abolish it too if it sends one person to jail?

[wowwieholmes]

Don't you think this logic is a little ridiculous? The penal system in the United States isn't perfect, should we abolish it too if it sends one person to jail?

To me, there's a differnece between the penal system and the death penalty.

Ben

[Nifoziyfar]

No, no, no. Nothing needs to be cut, except the death penalty.

Ben

Oh .. nothing needs to be cut, except what you disagree with ..?

[irridgita]

Oh .. nothing needs to be cut, except what you disagree with ..?

No appeals should be cut, IMHO. If we HAVE to have a death penalty, the appeals should be as lengthy as possible.

Ben

[lopaayd]

To me, there's a differnece between the penal system and the death penalty.

Ben

Why? Someone "innocent" could get sentenced to life in prison, serve that sentence and essentially lose their life.

[77Dinaartickire]

Why? Someone "innocent" could get sentenced to life in prison, serve that sentence and essentially lose their life.

Yes, but the srtate is not activley taking their life. I see your argument, but I think it's faulty. There is passive life-taking and active life-taking.

Ben

[Appenianags]

I think your questions have narrowed the scope a little too much. Technology is advancing in the field of forensics, and as it is progressing, we are likely to see less and less innocent people on death row. If these scientific methods provide substantial information to convict a criminal, then they provide substantial information to justify death.

Then think of the question as a hypothetical excercise. There is no better framework for practical application than the hypothetical ('use-cases' if you will... )

[Slchtjgb]

Yes, but the srtate is not activley taking their life. I see your argument, but I think it's faulty. There is passive life-taking and active life-taking.

Ben

So you rather have tax payers spend more money to house these creeps then to put them to sleep.

[LoveTTatall]

So you rather have tax payers spend more money to house these creeps then to put them to sleep.

The death penalty costs more, generally. I don't have time to find a source.

Legal proceedings cost more than room and board.

Ben

[emorbimefed]

Don't you think this logic is a little ridiculous? The penal system in the United States isn't perfect, should we abolish it too if it sends one person to jail?

I believe there are some who feel that death is worse than jail. The question could conceivably be re-framed as "is there a penalty severe enough that we must be sure we're never wrong about it?"

If I get drunk and pee in public, I get a fine. If I'm wrongly convicted, then I have to pay a fine for something I did not do. That sucks, but it isn't the end of the world. If I am wrongly convicted of a capital offense, it is, literally, the end of the world.

Thus, we can specifically talk about the death penalty, and not talk about whether or not other crimes should be enforced. It should also be noted that, from the standpoint of crime prevention, there is no difference between life in jail and death. This is significant, because it could be argued (and I'm playing devil's advocate here) that the death penalty, unlike any other penal sentence, is completely gratuitous.

[Wrencytet]

So you rather have tax payers spend more money to house these creeps then to put them to sleep.

What makes you think the death penalty is cheap?
North Carolina spends more per execution than on a non-death penalty murder case.
The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993). On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion spent since 1976 on the death penalty. The study,"The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina" is available on line at www-pps.aas.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/comnc.pdf. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...did=108&scid=7

Texas death penalty cases cost more than non-capital cases.
That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)

_________________________________________________

Kansas Study Concludes Death Penalty is Costly Policy
In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases. The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The costs of appeals were 29% of the total expense, and the incarceration and execution costs accounted for the remaining 22%. In comparison to non-death penalty cases, the following findings were revealed:

* The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.
* The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).
* The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.
* The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.
* Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.

(Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections) Read DPIC's Summary of the Kansas Cost Report.

[nuveem7070]

To be honest, I really don't care. Like abortion, right to life, creationism, gay marriage, etc., this is just another wedge issue that in the long run, makes little to no difference on the lives of most people.

The amount of people wrongly put to death in this country is so insignificant, we should be more worried about the health of innocent carnival sword swallowers.

I believe that more energy should be put into a debate on how to prevent murderers in the first place, rather than how to deal with them after the fact.

[vvxtiopmx]

The death penalty costs more, generally. I don't have time to find a source.

Legal proceedings cost more than room and board.

Ben

How so Ben? A little drug and then fry them into ashes problem solved. Cheap

[Xcqjwarl]

I guess maybe I should clear things up a little bit, because on review my "I don't care" statement doesn't really add much to the debate.

I wouldn't lose any sleep if the death penalty was abolished. Life in prison with no parole is akin to a drawn out death sentence in my book, anyways. It's impossible to say how I'd feel about the death sentence should a loved one be killed, but for now, I'd say life in prison would be adequate.

If, however, we continue to have the death penalty (which it looks like we will), it wouldn't hurt to have an even stronger vetting process on deciding who is put to death and who isn't. When we're talking about a persons life, we ought to show them more mercy then what they showed there victims. It's what's called taking the high road and "being the bigger man". I would be comfortable with limiting the death penalty to only the most heinous murders and only with overwhelming evidence, including trustworthy DNA evidence, to convict them.

I guess that still adds up to "I don't care", but at least it's a bit more in depth...

[Figelac]

How so Ben? A little drug and then fry them into ashes problem solved. Cheap

Do you understand the process of appeals? It seems you don't. Appeals cost money.

Ben

[bromgeksan]

Do you understand the process of appeals? It seems you don't. Appeals cost money.

Ben

Yes Ben I do understand but it is cheeper to fry him and he was what like 20 years before he got his. 20 years to long.

[uMG6uOSo]

Originally Posted by sglaine
How so Ben? A little drug and then fry them into ashes problem solved. Cheap sglaine, i posted some info about it, including a link if you are interested as to why it costs so much.

[Angry White American]

Yes Ben I do understand but it is cheeper to fry him and he was what like 20 years before he got his. 20 years to long.

No, it's not cheaper!! Did you read what I posted? You can't fry someone without appeals!!

Sheesh....

Ben