Things like this ALMOST make me believe in the death penalty-discusting beyond belief

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
There is nothing more dangerous in the world than a murderer serving a life sentence.

The death penatly is also a life sentence. It's just much shorter.

[Boris Godunov]

Re expense of life in Prison:

It has been demonstrated numerous times that it actually costs the states less to house and feed a prisoner for life than to have that same prisoner go through the process leading to the DP, which is filled with costly court appeals, evidence reviews, etc.

First, prisoners can provide an extremely cheap source of labor for the state. Thank them for your license plates.

Second, unless you are willing to do away with the mechanisms for appeal, which would be a dangerous move towards executing innocents (think of the numerous death row inmates freed recently after years due to new evidence). If we relegated the DP to only those cases where guilt was certain and the threat of the culprit imminent (Gacy et al), then such an abbreviation of the process could be acceptable. But I cannot in good conscience accept a curtailing of the appeal process in all murder cases for which the DP currently is applied. Executing an innocent person is simply unexceptable, and if it is done I would say a complete cessation of any and all executions is required.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Lorizael
I don't see why my personal knowledge of someone in prison would hold any weight here. Anecdotal evidence means nothing in a debate.

What unsubstantiated claimes have I made, however? Point them out and I'll try to find statistics for you.

"Murders in prison may not be rare, but they don't happen often."


Ok. Start here.

[SlowwHand]

Boris, with all due respect, cheap labor?
How the hell do you figure?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What's the difference between that and leaving them somewhere to die, as you suggest?

They wouldn't be on a barren rock--the island would be capable of sustaining those on it. How is that different than incarceration?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
They wouldn't be on a barren rock--the island would be capable of sustaining those on it. How is that different than incarceration?

Guards and rules to protect the lives of the prisoners for starters.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rah
While I'm sure it's not a deterrent to the hard core's, I did read some interviews with some inmates that had been caught using fake guns for their robbery. When asked why they used a fake gun, they said it was to insure a lesser punishiment if caught. NO PEOPLE WERE KILLED in any of those robberies. (this was many many years ago) but it leads me to believe that capital punishment can reduce some murders.

There is a difference between wanting to get a lessor sentence on robbery v. armed robbery and people not wanting to committ murder becuase they're afraid of the DP.

Let's face it, the states which have the DP have insane rates of murder while states without have much lower rates. New England, for example, has murder rates comparable to Europe (2+ per 100,000), while Texas has a murder rate almost six times the rest of the nation (48+ per 100,000).

People who committ murder aren't terribly likely to worry about punishment, since they aren't planning on getting caught. Either the murder is in a fit of rage (or under the influence), in which case they aren't thinking at all or it's very carefully planned so that they can get away with it.

Yes, this was a sick crime, but let's face it, murder almost always is. I can't think of a murder which really didn't upset or outrage someone. Killing these kids won't bring the boy back. It just means another set of families will be burying their children.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Guards and rules to protect the lives of the prisoners for starters.

In many prisons, inmates are protected more by associating with other prisoners (gangs) than by whatever the guards offer. Guards are (understandably) not often willing to step in and protect a prisoner except in the most extreme instances.

I'm baffled as to why you're concerned about that, however, since the alternative is executing the prisoners here...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Right. 1 is the same as 1000. Good thinking.

You missed my point entirely.

Suppose I really really hate my boss. So I carry out my plot of killing him. Now, since if I get caught, I'll be given the capital punishment anyway, so why don't I go down in a blaze of glory? Blowing up buildings, robbing banks, setting fire to police stations, etc. I can't end up worse off, no?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by rah
The problem with incarcerating hard core murderers for life, is that you don't have a lot of additional options to punish them. With no fear of punishment there is no deterent for the to kill a guard or another prisoner. Killings in prison are not a rare event.

I thought about this some more. My conclusion is, even if you put hard core murderers on Death Row, you can't stop them from killing more. In fact, they might just do it because they can't be worse off.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
Life, no parole, in complete solitary confinement. One hour per week exercise allowed. One shower per week No books. No TV.

A better deterrent, Imo

How do I put this simply....... your a .....sadist?

And if you think the death penalty is a detterent, your a fool.

No one commits murders thinking they will get caught-or if they do, its a crime of passion.

[Velociryx]

Clearly they were passionate about it....with that whole group hug there at the end.

-=Vel=-

[SlowwHand]

"Let's face it, the states which have the DP have insane rates of murder while states without have much lower rates. New England, for example, has murder rates comparable to Europe (2+ per 100,000), while Texas has a murder rate almost six times the rest of the nation (48+ per 100,000)."


In the first place, New England isn't a state.
In the second place, in 2000, here are the stats.

Texas murder rate per 100,000: 5.9
Rhode Island :4.3

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
In many prisons, inmates are protected more by associating with other prisoners (gangs) than by whatever the guards offer. Guards are (understandably) not often willing to step in and protect a prisoner except in the most extreme instances.

Lincoln's experience would really be useful here if he were still posting.

I'm baffled as to why you're concerned about that, however, since the alternative is executing the prisoners here...

Why? Is it not rational to favor a quick death to the slow and likely painful one you offer?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Re expense of life in Prison:

It has been demonstrated numerous times that it actually costs the states less to house and feed a prisoner for life than to have that same prisoner go through the process leading to the DP, which is filled with costly court appeals, evidence reviews, etc.

That's because of easily abused appellate rules, and the refusal of courts to priority docket DP appeals over other appellate issues.

First, prisoners can provide an extremely cheap source of labor for the state. Thank them for your license plates.

LWOP prisoners generally are confined to doing no work, or little work in very limited environments, due to the security risks they represent. The direct labor cost for less dangerous inmates is low, but the indirect costs of security and monitoring are fairly high.

Second, unless you are willing to do away with the mechanisms for appeal, which would be a dangerous move towards executing innocents (think of the numerous death row inmates freed recently after years due to new evidence). If we relegated the DP to only those cases where guilt was certain and the threat of the culprit imminent (Gacy et al), then such an abbreviation of the process could be acceptable. But I cannot in good conscience accept a curtailing of the appeal process in all murder cases for which the DP currently is applied.

The process can be streamlined easily, from trial procedure reforms to appellate rules and reforms. There's too much allownance for small-town slop in investigation and trial in a lot of states. Basically, if you increase the scrutiny and procedural requirements from the outset, there are less real issues to raise on appeal. Mandatory independent examination of forensic evidence, DNA testing, etc. will increase cost before and during trial, but reduce cost in appeal and delay of sentence, so states should pick up those charges, and not foist them on local jurisdictions. It's like the old Fram oil filter commercials - you can pay a little now, or a lot later.

Reducing the number of Federal appellate paths has worked - most wrongful conviction issues have been found and resolved at the state appellate level.

A lot of the resistance to reform of the system is from the anti-DP camp, who want to maintain as many obstacles as possible to implementation.

Executing an innocent person is simply unexceptable, and if it is done I would say a complete cessation of any and all executions is required.

I agree, to the extent of a moratorium on executions in the jurisdiction that wrongfully executed the innocent party, and fundamental reform of the entire trial system. IMO, locking up innocent persons for five years is simply unacceptable, so I'm generally in favor of any and all procedural reforms that will assure police and DA's do their jobs competently, that defendants have competent and active defense lawyers, and that strict adherence to evidentiary rules and procedures is enforced, with serious penalties for negligent violation, and God take pity on your miserable soul penalties for deliberate violations of evidentiary rules and procedures.