What good does the death penalty do?

[ulysses]

It's fairly obvious that it isn't a deterrent.

If it's "justice", then we might as well have lynch mobs.

What's the good in giving the state the right to kill a citizen, especially given the vagaries of the state?

[Warpy]

1. I'm old and I've only seen ONE real DP case

and that was Ted Bundy, a man who escaped from custody twice and went on killing. Trying to keep him in prison (unless the doors were welded shut) was probably not possible.

I agree with the Talmud that more than one DP case in 7 years (and some interpretations say 70 years) is tyranny.

And yes, I say this as a survivor of a family homicide.

[ulysses]

4. I'm sorry to hear that.

And yes, I say this as a survivor of a family homicide.

re: Bundy - I'd rather we weld the doors shut than kill even someone like him.

[hobbit709]

17. Some "people"

like Bundy, MacDuff are like rabid dogs-there's only one cure for that.
They won't stop until they are stopped-unfortunately.

[ulysses]

22. "like rabid dogs" is a term of jurisprudence?

Or one of yours?

[hobbit709]

31. The phrase "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men"

to me is a matter of personal experience. And I'm NOT going to go into detail.

[ulysses]

33. and I won't ask you to go into detail

but that's still not a very sound basis for a justice system.

[Warpy]

34. Me too, surprisingly enough.

however, his was the only case I've ever seen that could have justified it in any way.

[electron_blue]

24. That's who I thought of - I'm against the Death Penalty but when

they executed him, I thought at least he won't ever kill anyone else again. I guess that's the only good.... But if we're just trying to miminize killings, I think it does way more harm than good.

[aquart]

2. I really need the personal satisfaction.

When Ted Bundy fried, and Old Sparky was nasty that day, I was both relieved and pleased.

Some people I want dead. Not necessarily the same people others want dead.

[ulysses]

7. so justice is about your personal satisfaction?

:shrug:

[hobbit709]

19. Satisfaction-NO

Relief that they're no longer doing it-Yes

[zanne]

62. Sounds very much like revenge to me.

Justice, my ass.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. Not a damn bit of good, except maybe putting us in the same...

...company as North Korea, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Rwanda and a host of other countries that I really don't want to model our country after.

[iwanmycntrybak]

5. We need the room in prison for the Bush Republicrooks!

[Lengsel]

6. removes

Removes shiznit off the earth so we don't have to pay for them in prison!

But I don't believe in the Death Penalty. I just felt like saying something in an angry fashion. I wish we'd make prison conditions more uncomfortable (no A/C, fed bread and water, no weights or television, hard labor) for serious offenders.

[ulysses]

8. I can see getting rid of the weights and TV.

Never understood that anyway.

[Kierkegaard]

11. The TV keeps 'em from playing 'Oops, I dropped the soap'

quite as often as they might otherwise. Simple distractions.

:evilgrin:

[ulysses]

12. heh!

Thanks, Soren. :D

[Nevernose]

68. The TV's not there for the prisoners, it's for the guards

When every prisoner has a boob-tube in his own cell, violent behavior in prison drops by an incredible amount, making the prison a safer environment for both prisoners and, especially, guards.

[Bluzmann57]

41. Now see, that's what I've been saying

No contact with the outside world at all. None. No magazines, TV, radio, newspapers, phone calls, no contact with any other prisoners, no visitors, two meals a day, three showers a week, that's all the freaks of our society deserve. But there is a strong liklihood that my proposal would get shot down as cruel and unusual punishment, so death it is, in limited situations.
We had a case here in Iowa a few months ago where two brothers who had been convicted once already (allegedly) raped and killed a little girl for no apparent reason. The scenario I described above is what I would like to see for pieces of shit like that. They do not deserve to breathe the same air that law abiding citizens do. FYI, they confessed, so please do not give me any stuff about guilty until proven innocent.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. That approach was actually tried in the nineteenth century

(only without the TV and radio, of course). Prisoners were kept in solitary ("stir") with nothing to do and nothing in their cells except a Bible. They never saw another human being.

The result was prisoners going stark raving mad en masse due to sensory deprivation. This is the source of the term "stir crazy."

That model of prison management was dropped after officials realized that managing a prison full of people who are tearing out their own hair and smearing shit on the walls is not easy.

[greatauntoftriplets]

9. As far as I am concerned....

it doesn't deter murders one bit. Either the perpetrator isn't thinking "I might get fried for this" at the time the murder is committed...or else thinks he/she is superperson and will never get caught. To my knowledge, the death penalty is no deterrent.

[ulysses]

13. amen, my friend.

:hi:

[greatauntoftriplets]

16. I actually met someone who had been on death row in Illinois...

for the murder of his parents. Then he got cleared and the real killers caught.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/gauger.htm

I never voted for George Ryan as governor (of course) but he did some good. This is one of those instances.

[ulysses]

28. I'm normally not big on Republicans either

(as you know :) ) but Ryan still gets big kudos from me on that issue.

[Jamastiene]

38. You are right, you know.

It is definitely not a deterrant. It doesn't seem to give the victims' families any "closure" or whatever it is supposed to. They rarely come out of the viewing area happy and cheerful when the perp gets put to death for hurting their loved ones. The only thing I can think of is that is saves money for the states. Apparently, it costs more to put them in prison for life than it does to do them in for good. I can't think of anything else. That's all I got.

[Warpy]

40. Wrong

The automatic appeal costs the state more money than simple incarceration would. It's also necessary, given that the average time for exculpatory evidence to surface is eight years.

There is NO savings with the DP. There is no closure for the families. There is no deterrent effect. It just satisfies a blood lust expressed by some of the people on this board.

And yes, I'm still speaking as a survivor of a family homicide. This isn't theory to me. Having the killer put to death in my name would have made it worse. As it was, he died in jail, and he never did it to anyone else.

[Obamanaut]

77. Actually, death row is more expensive

It costs approximately $72.39 per day to incarcerate a Death Row inmate.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/deathrow/index.html

“it cost $48.23 a day to incarcerate and care for an inmate in FY 2003-04...”
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/

Excerpt from USA Today indicates more and more people are becoming anti-death penalty

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-12-13-death-penalties_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — The use of the death penalty dropped this year for the fifth year in a row, as questions grow about the guilt of the condemned and more states take a hard look at their use of executions, says a report by a group critical of the punishment.
<snip>
The majority of executions, 85%, took place in the South.
<snip>
. "The public's confidence in the death penalty has seriously eroded over the past several years."
<snip>

[proud2BlibKansan]

81. Do those figures include legal fees?

I have always heard it is more expensive to keep them on death row because of the legal expenses.

[Obamanaut]

82. Those dollar amounts are from the Fla Dept of Corr web site, and

are for day to day operations (security, food, laundry, etc.) The links will take you to various charts and graphs with breakdowns. Expenses for appeals are not shown in these charts/graphs. Because these figures are for Fla DoC, other states' expenses are probably different.

[MarsThe Cat]

94. more expensive than what?

it's more expensive to keep someone on death row than in general population because the ratio of guards-to-inmates is higher.

BUT- if the death penalty was abolished, there wouldn't be a "death row".

AND- isn't the cost of the death penalty(lawyers fees/court costs for automatic appeals, death row prison costs, etc.) higher than the cost of life without parole?

[Obamanaut]

96. More expensive than 'general population',

"it's more expensive to keep someone on death row than in general population because the ratio of guards-to-inmates is higher."

I don't dispute this at all - there are additional suicide watches, additional security requirements, meals delivered which entails additional security.

"BUT- if the death penalty was abolished, there wouldn't be a "death row"."

This goes without saying, no death penalty, no death row, thus lower cost. The $ amounts in my earlier post, links provided, (higher for death row than gen pop) do not include any legal costs, just the cost of housing.

"AND- isn't the cost of the death penalty(lawyers fees/court costs for automatic appeals, death row prison costs, etc.) higher than the cost of life without parole?"

Isn't it true that the cost for at least the first appeal for someone sentenced to death borne by the state? For general population appeals the prisoner (or family member) picks up the tab.

So, since we seem to agree, perhaps I missed something.

[Sapphire Blue]

10. None. Absolutely none.

[iamjoy]

14. Serious Or Philosophically?

Seriously - some are so evil and violent they are hard to control, even in prison. Combine this with some one clever enough to escape and the only containment is death.

Philosophically, there is a bit of animal in us all. Does no good denying it. As individuals and a society we hide it and embrace it at different levels. For many people, when some one breaks the rules they get satisfaction from punishing the rule breaker. If you think you are above it ask yourself if you aren't just a little bit pleased everytime you hear a Republican is in trouble. Yes, you claim, but you wouldn't wish *physical* harm on them. No matter, the principle is the same, just at a different level.

As for it not being a deterrent, some claim it is and point to Saudi Arabia as an example. They have a brutal system, but I don't think they have a big problem with street crime. Or, what about Singapore, for that matter. Very clean, no litter...consider one can be flogged for it and maybe it isn't just national pride that keeps the streets so spotless. I think that certainly indicates punishment can be a deterrent although I would not want to embrace either of those examples.

[ulysses]

21. either way, I suppose.

Seriously - some are so evil and violent they are hard to control, even in prison. Combine this with some one clever enough to escape and the only containment is death.

Given the number of people we have incarcerated, the escapee rate seems pretty damned small to me. Those who do escape (e.g. Brian Nichols here in Atlanta) usually owe their escape to boneheaded oversights on the part of their holders. If we're to kill all those who are an escape risk, shouldn't we make sure we tighten up our own procedures first?

Philosophically, there is a bit of animal in us all. Does no good denying it.

I wouldn't dream of denying it.

For many people, when some one breaks the rules they get satisfaction from punishing the rule breaker. If you think you are above it ask yourself if you aren't just a little bit pleased everytime you hear a Republican is in trouble. Yes, you claim, but you wouldn't wish *physical* harm on them. No matter, the principle is the same, just at a different level.

I call bullshit. Sure, I'm quite pleased when I hear that a Repuke is in trouble, same as I'm happy when a murderer is caught. Where you err is in the punishment. Let Tom Delay do his time. Let Nichols do his time. The state has no business killing citizens in a civilized society.

And yes, we do purport to have a somewhat civilized society, and I'm happy for that.

As for it not being a deterrent, some claim it is and point to Saudi Arabia as an example...Or, what about Singapore, for that matter. Very clean, no litter...although I would not want to embrace either of those examples.

Then why bring them up?

[iamjoy]

57. Interesting Response

Maybe a lot of prisoners don't actually escape, but how often do they harm people in prison? This includes fellow inmates as well as correctional officers.

I do not err in the punishment. Some people just have different ideas of what is suitable punishment. Some use the "eye for an eye" philosophy and that is why they support the death penalty for murderers. Some people have an emotional reaction when they hear about a particularly savage murder and want the killer put to death and actually get satisfaction from the execution. The people who do tend to be pro-death penalty, the people who don't are anti-death penalty.

I bring up brutal justice systems to refute your assumption that punishment can be a deterrent. It is possible it can, although other factors would have to work with it. But I don't think it would be worth the price. I fear some people in this country think it would be.

[beyurslf]

15. It is a specific deterrent. It's obvious the person put to death can't

kill anyone again.

[ulysses]

23. nor can he, should he be proven innocent later,

be paroled.

[NMMNG]

53. "Deterrent" means it keeps people from committing the crime in the first

place.

Killing them after the fact is punishment, and at best prevents recidivism--life in prison would serve the same purpose.

[stevebreeze]

18. the death penalty does not deter crime..else TX would be the safest state

in the union.

It costs three times as much to kill as it does to keep um locked up for life. Judges juries and prosecutors spend much more on death cases as they correctly don't want to execute an innocent person. Despite that many have been freed from death row, when further investigation showed their actual innocence.

The death penalty is there so politicians can look as if they are being tough. This is not enough reason to kill as a nation.

[BigBearJohn]

20. Some people just dont deserve to live. You take a life, you forfeit yours

your actions NEED to have consequences.

[ulysses]

27. and they do have consequences.

Killing a convicted murderer does no more good than imprisoning them for life. You didn't answer the original question.

[BigBearJohn]

49. What good does it do? It keeps them out of MY life.

In particular, I'm thinking of a guy who was arrested
and convicted for raping and killing a young girl.

His death will prevent him from killing anyone else.
That's what good it does.

I'm not blind to the ramifications of this question,
such as innocent people getting convicted, but I just
can't help but wonder how someone would feel about the
death penalty after losing someone to a heinous crime.
It's easy to be an armchair philosopher, but when it
gets close to home, opinions change significantly.

[ulysses]

65. yes, I know they do.

but when it gets close to home, opinions change significantly

That's why we don't just hand suspects over to the victim's family. Would I want to kill with my bare hands someone who hurt, say, my wife? Of course. That wouldn't make it right or good for either me or the state to actually do it.

[BigBearJohn]

76. What is "right" and "good" is a matter of opinion.

Our justice system of checks and balances is by no means perfect.
We do offer those on death row significant opportunities to appeal.

I guess what I am currently pissed off about is what I read about
Mark Chapman's (the man who murdered John Lennon)"parole" hearing:
"In a July 2000 interview with Court TV, Chapman said "I think the
depression is over. The mental illness is over." Oh, it's ok. You
were depressed. You can be released now. I understand. You made a
mistake. You were depressed. Totally understandable.

He THINKS his depression is over? This man ADMITTEDLY murdered our
beloved John Lennon, leaving Lennon's sweet little boy without a
father, a man loved, even adored, by millions and millions of people,
and Chapman now has an opportunity for PAROLE every two years? Yoko
Ono protests at the hearing that she fears for the lives of her
children and yet this murderer has a CHANCE for PAROLE!!! Is this
what we expect of our JUSTICE system? If so, I want NO part of it.

What gives Mark Chapman the right to live? He ADMITS he murdered
John Lennon becauase he "wanted to be SOMEBODY." And we should let
him live? Hate me if you will, feel sorry for me if you will, condemn
me if you will, but I would gladly accept the job to flick the switch
on Chapman's electric chair. Good riddance. Good, honest people
have rights too... like, say for instance, the right TO LIVE.

Rant over. Sorry for being so emotional about this, it's just
that when I listened to a special the other day about Mark Chapman
and how he stalked John Lennon, my blood pressure skyrockets.

[Bill McBlueState]

44. wow, that was well thought-out

If someone blinds someone else, do we pull out their eyes, too? People say, "an eye for an eye," but that's pretty sadistic when you think about it.

Actions can have consequences without requiring an inhuman tit-for-tat.

[BigBearJohn]

50. Oh, please. Now who is going to the extreme? Maybe I should

have been more specific in my post. I was specifically thinking
of a young girl who was raped and brutally murdered. Now, if you
can be forgiving towards a criminal like that, and only want them
in prison (with a likely possibility for parole 30 years down the
line), that's your choice == not mine.

[MisterP]

47. that's what jails are for--consequences

[TahitiNut]

61. So, all the people in death penaty states should be put to death, too?

Or... should we await even more proof that innocent victims were put to death under the death penalty? The 'reasons' for the death penalty are nearly indistinguishable from many of those who've been convicted of murder. In inflicting the death penalty, the state becomes a murderer.

[zanne]

63. If you're not God, you can't decide who deserves to live.

If you ARE God, raise your hand.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. If there's one passage of the bible that I agree with, it's that

"Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord", God is the only one who gets to kill people.

Even though I question the existance of god, what it means to me is that humans are not fit to determine whether other humans live or die.

[Mr_Spock]

25. Just another way for vengeful Republicans to kill people in Gods name

Them Republicans just LOVE to kill people. It's designed to intimidate ALL people, guilty or not with the possibility that they could be killed if they step out of line. What it doesn't do is intimidate criminals, it just makes society a more non-Christian place - just as those murderers like.

[Porcupine]

26. It's simple human sacrifice. Somebody HAS to DIE.....

and death penalty advocates really don't care who. Every well researched arguement against the death penalty proves that it is not a deterrent and is generally applied only to the poor, retarded and insane.

It is also frequently pointed out that many death penalty cases hinge on witness testimony. Witness testimony has been repeatedly proven to be the most unreliable evidence allowed in a courtroom. So if we are not willing to provide death penalty cases with decent legal representation or fair, scientific evidence rules it becomes clear that we don't care who is put to death.

Death penalty advocates just want somebody, anybody to lose their lives to satisfy the demands of their own pain and fear.

Human Sacrifice for the publics fear and prejudice.

[stevedeshazer]

29. I'm with you, ulysses

I don't want the government killing people to show that killing people is wrong.

We do enough of that already.

[ulysses]

30. it's like some of our kids at school.

We have a substantial number of kids who seem to do nothing but fight, and you wonder "what the hell?" until you call the mama up to have a discussion about her little pugilist and she beats the everliving crap out of him in front of you. For fighting.

[mtowngman]

32. just read in Jimmy Carter's new book

that "with the advent of DNA testing, it has been found that many people on death row are actually not guilty."

Sr. Helen Prejean states in the preface of her book, "Death of Innocents" "...government bureaucrats can scarcely be trusted to get potholes in the streets filled, much less be allowed to decide who should live and who should die."

Dylan: "How can the life of such a man be in the palm of some fool's hand?"

[auntAgonist]

35. Sr. Helen Prejean's book

is an eye-opening accounting of wrongful death. I'm about 2/3 of the way through Death of Innocents.

Dead Man Walking was an excellent book also.

[mtowngman]

36. Both great reads

an amazing woman

[ulysses]

37. the Prejean quote

reminds me of what I've asked several conservative friends - you won't trust the government with your money, but you'll trust them to know who to kill?

[mtowngman]

39. aside from the moral issue

the chance that we may make JUST ONE mistake and execute the wrong person should be enough to ditch the death penalty. What happened to erring on the side of caution?

[auntAgonist]

42. amen to that. nt

[Fescue4u]

52. WOuldnt that strengthen the case for the DP?

Now that we have technology for prove innocence such as DNA, the chances of executing wrongly convicted people diminishes greatly.

[Solon]

78. It only reduces the chances, it doesn't eliminate them entirely...

Another problem is what I call "Bloodlust syndrome" that's when either the police or prosecutor needs to have SOMEBODY convicted, doesn't really matter who, so that the public is satisfied. Cases like that FBI lab that fudged the results of DNA tests to increase conviction rates, shit like that, are a real danger.

ON EDIT: Personally, if people really want the death penalty to still be around, one thing must happen, prosecutors, police, and lab technicians who either suborn perjury, violate the suspect's rights, or falsify results in labs, that result in someone being either thrown in jail or put in prison, should themselves be thrown in jail or put on death row, that's justice.

[Cleita]

43. Unfortunately, the "state" has always reserved the right

to execute those that are considered a menace to society since the days of the tribe. Now whose society criminals are a menace to seems to be subject to whom have the most power, money and influence.

Right now, although I know I will never see it, I have harbored dark thoughts of our present criminals in the White House being executed before a firing squad. I know it's wrong to even think this way and it would be better that they spend their lives in some sort of imprisonment for the rest of their lives.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. There were no prisons in the day of the tribe

The death penalty was the only way to keep murderers from murdering again. We live in a civilized society now. Or at least I would like to think that we do.

[Cleita]

97. I have read that they were exiled from the tribe more often than

not and it was up to them to survive without the support of the communal resources of the tribe. If they tried to get back in they most likely would be killed then.

[Lannes]

45. To quote the Twilight Zone

"He saw he hated he killed,we saw we hated and we killed".I forget the name of the episode but it was about the lynching of a man who killed someone.

Also,there are instances where the wrong man was put to death for a crime.The fact that its not 100% foolproof should be a deterent against capital punishment by itself.

[TheGunslinger]

46. Who stands to profit?

[Odin2005]

48. The Death Penalty is no more effective than Life in Prison.

It is gratuitous violence that helps nothing, and sends innocent people (biased towards minorities) to death. it is a modern equivalent of the tit-for-tat blood feuds of barbarian cultures of ages past, it has no purpose in civilized society.

[Fescue4u]

51. Stop repeat offenders

Close the chapter on a horrible crime.
Gives the families closure.
Opens a spot in jail for a vicious criminal.

[Bill McBlueState]

64. the death penalty as a way to reduce overcrowding in prisons

That's a new one. Do you realize how many prisoners would have to be killed off for that to make a bit of a difference?

[Fescue4u]

66. One

[BIG Sean]

54. It prevents that person from killing again...even in jail.

Their are some people that this earth is just better off without.

Some of these pieces of garbage in prison will attack guards and other prisoners because they know that there is nothing more you can do to them.

The Death penalty prevents them from killing again.

[Fescue4u]

79. Thats a good point. Vicious Killers do not stop killing

just because they are in jail.

Many times they continue to hand out their own death penality to others (possibly convicted of much lesser crimes), while they spend their remaining days in prison.

Really, once a person is beyond redemption, Redemption that humans can hand out anyway, there is really no reason to keep them around.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

55. It is too a deterrent!

The first death penalty was carried out thousands of years ago. And since then, no one has ever committed another crime!


:eyes:

Seriously, it is only because people, humans, crave revenge.

[LWolf]

56. It does absolutely no "good."

It serves several purposes, but none of them fall under "good."

[Deja Q]

58. It keeps repeat psychopaths from raping and killing again.

It's a waste of resources.

Why should good working Americans live in poverty when we've got those vermin get food, housing, work to do, education...

Of course, take away a person's ability to live and some of them go bonkers (the movie "Falling Down" comes to mind...)

And it isn't a deterrent. Some people have a lower threshold for civility. Or think that "freedom" is another word for meaning "having nothing left to lose".

Which brings up a point; how about the corporate criminals like ken lay and his ilk? They've done far worse than kill their ex-employees. They've hurt them. Like a rapist would. But we are by, of, and for the corporation. That much is increasingly obvious. So they can do what they want. For they are above the law$ that 'guide us'.

[jmm]

59. It gives people a sense of security

Granted it is a false sense of security. Apparently giving the same government we don't trust to properly lock people or even use our tax dollars appropriately that kind of power makes some people feel safe. I'll never agree but that's the closest to a good thing I can say about the death penalty.

[Catchawave]

60. I always thought "life in prison"

would be a better deterrent than the death penalty.

I'm not a big fan of incarcerating non-violent criminals either. Like Martha Stewart sorta of white collar crimes.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Prison is actually a good deterrent for white collar criminals

The thought of actually having to go to prison (even be it country club prison) is enough to make white collar criminals who are used to an extravagant lifestyle at least think twice before commiting their crime.

In Martha's case, though, there are definately whit ecollar criminals who are more deserving to be locked up.

[Catchawave]

80. Oh, I agree....

The MartHa FeloNs GrouP should be punished financially? Yes!

Like garnishing THEIR wages to be shared by the employees and stockholders ? No prison time, just financial loss! Kewl :)

[Greyhound]

67. None at all. Except to make us look like the barbarians that we are. n/t

[Pushed To The Left]

69. I used to be a pretty rabid death penalty supporter

What changed my mind was the fact that we have wrongful convictions in this country, and there have been innocent people on death row. If somebody is wrongfully given a life sentence, that person can be released if a mistake is discovered. However, if that person has been executed, it's too late, and we have killed an innocent person.
Here is an example of somebody who is serving a life sentence for a crime for which DNA has proven him to be innocent:
www.freeclarence.com
Just imagine if he had been executed.

[barb162]

70. no more room and board costs?

Since when is Justice a lynch mob. Justice implies a judge and jury and if that jury does a death penalty after hearing all the facts.....

My comments do not apply to TX and or any other states where people are not necessarily given a fair trial.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent from everything I have read.

Take the Tim McVeigh case...that was probably a fair trial as there was such media watching. Plus he admitted he did it. Should the relatives of his scores of innocent victims know they are paying for 50 plus years of his incarceration? Or was it better just putting him to death.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Room and board is actually cheaper

Almost all death penalty cases are appealed all the way and court costs are more than life in prison.

[Fescue4u]

85. But shouldnt non death penality cases have just as many appeals?

Life in prison is the 2nd most harsh punishment we can render.

Seems to me that someone sentenced to life in prison should be entitled to just as many appeals as someone sentenced to death.

Everyone is entitled to appeal their case to the highest courts possible anytime they are accused of a crime.

Its just that folks sentenced to death have a much higher motivation to pursue those remedys.

I don't know. It seems to me that basing justice on the cost isnt the appropriate way to decide what is just.

Justice should be based on Justice, not what it costs to deliver it.

[Hippo_Tron]

89. The appeals are to get the sentence reduced, not to get off

Death penalty cases are almost always automatically appealed by the lawyers (no matter how obvious or not that the person is guilty) to higher courts so as to try to get the sentences reduced to life in prison.

And I agree with what you are saying, but the cost factor is just one more reason why we shouldn't have the death penalty.

[BuyingThyme]

75. It gets morans elected while giving

morans somebody to vote for.

[H2O Man]

83. Tha fact that innocent people

have been executed by the state should in and of itself be enough to convince anyone that capital punishment is a dangerous thing.

The argument that there are others who are always going to kill until they are killed is also simply false. The prison system is capable of rendering even the most dangerous of sociopaths incapable of harming others.

[Fescue4u]

86. So far they have done a poor job of this.

"The prison system is capable of rendering even the most dangerous of sociopaths incapable of harming others."

The most dangerous place on Earth is a maximum security prison. Just ask Jeffrey Dalhmer.

[H2O Man]

87. The prison system

is not perfect, of course, and people do get killed. And when one gathers the most dangerous of criminals in one place, it is possible to say that it become "the most dangerous place on Earth," and perhaps have a straight face. But it remains the best way to keep society safe from those same dangerous criminals who are sentenced to life without parole.

[mtowngman]

88. Wouldn't that make life in prison

at least as much of a deterrent as the death penalty?

[Fescue4u]

90. It absolutely does

But that aspect also means that many people sent there for minor crimes such as drug posession, end up receiving a death sentence because a murderer did not.

So you see, you end up getting a weird punishment inversion. Murderers get life in prison, while nonviolent criminals get the death penalty.

[mtowngman]

98. Then maybe the idea is to look at the penal system

and work on restructuring it so that violent and non-violent criminals aren't incarcerated together. It seems a more reasonable approach than executing people.
BTW- I used to advocate the death penalty before coming to believe that the taking of any life by anyone under any circumstance is morally wrong.

[terrya]

84. It isn't a deterrent, it doesn't bring the victims back...

It's useless, IMO. It imparts some sort of Biblical "justice"...but then, I always assumed we lived in a secular society...where bibilical law is not applicable or appropriate.

I'm opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance. Even with the most heinous cases...say, for instance, Jeffery Dahmer.

[Hippo_Tron]

101. Even the bible says... "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord"

As far as I'm concerned, unless you are one of those that interprets old testament laws literally, then the bible does not condone capital punishment.

[Hamlette]

91. Revenge. There is no other reason. n/t

[ConsAreLiars]

92. It make fear-hate driven simpletons happy and wins votes for

psychopathic politicians. It also helps the powers-that-be deceive the masses about the true causes of their fears and insecurities and the appropriate remedies for their distress.

[Lannes]

93. This could have been a death penalty case.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Sep-30-Fri-2005/news/3606728.html


Man, 57, freed amid allegations he was framed

Release is latest twist in case of ex-police detectives accused of moonlighting for mob

By TOM HAYS
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


NEW YORK -- A man convicted in the slaying of a prostitute 17 years ago was freed Thursday amid new allegations he was framed by a former police detective who was protecting the Mafia.

A Brooklyn judge released Barry Gibbs, 57, after prosecutors and defense attorneys agreed his 1988 murder conviction should be vacated. He walked out of the courthouse Thursday morning arm-in-arm with his defense attorneys; a news conference was scheduled for later in the day.



The release of Gibbs, who was serving a 20-years-to-life term, was the latest twist in the case of two former police detectives accused of moonlighting as killers for the mob during the 1980s and 1990s.

Louis Eppolito and Stephen Caracappa were arrested in Las Vegas in March on federal charges alleging they lived double lives as professional hitmen, settling scores against rivals of a Lucchese crime family underboss for tens of thousands of dollars.

Authorities decided to review the Gibbs case after discovering a homicide file on the prostitute killing during a search of Eppolito's home.

While investigating the slaying, Eppolito had located a witness who later testified that he had seen the defendant dump the body of the strangled prostitute near a bridge.

Under recent questioning by the FBI, the witness recanted the story, claiming Eppolito had bribed and intimidated him into identifying Gibbs, authorities said. Investigators now suspect the former detective may have been trying to deflect attention away from mobsters who were the actual killers.

The Brooklyn District Attorney's office, which prosecuted Gibbs, decided to seek his release after it "determined the witness's trial testimony was suspect," prosecutor Kenneth Taub said outside court.

[Swede]

95. Violence begets violence.

Look how crime free America is with the death penalty,when compared to the other industrialized countries.

[Wind Dancer]

105. Well said, Swede!

We are the only industrialized country that still practices this barbaric custom of legalized murder. There have been too many innocent that have been executed plus until recently, we murdered children. It's shameful.

Many conservatives and liberals endorse this even though statistics show it doesn't prevent crime and it does cost the taxpayer more money.

Go figure!

:shrug:

[SPKrazy]

99. It's a deterrent only to the one being executed

he/she will never kill again.

But i don't believe in generally, although there are some cases where perhaps it is just.

It isn't a deterrent.

[ErisFiveFingers]

100. It ensures legal justice.

You'll have to follow me for a second here.

DP cases, because they are considered so "important", have a *lot* more legal resources and appeal chances provided for defendants. Free legal aid teams help them out, anti-DP advocates exert political pressure, and the end result is that people sitting on death row often get *better* representation, and resulting justice, than some poor unknown kid who gets sentenced to 20 years for muling LSD.

Ok, so it's not much of a silver lining, but I tried. :)

[ulysses]

102. heh.

A noble effort. :)

[moriverrat]

103. The death penalty debate usually ignores those..

Who have a fraction of their years taken away from them for a non-violent drug violation.

Another way to see this:

Ten people serve approximately 7 years for a non-violent drug violation.

Ten multiplied by 7 equals 70 years- close to the average life span.

Those ten political prisoners, as a whole , constitute the equivalent of one person being put to death, in my opinion, and they never took the life of anyone else, as the case may be with a member of death row.

All persons sentenced to death, or major time, by the way,
should be given full access to DNA tests and other means which could prove their innocence.