The Death Penalty

[Aabraxan]

Originally posted by SlowwHand The crime was committed in 1993. Twelve years have passed. They didn't want, nor think of having DNA tests done until the very day of execution?

Did I miss something? Are we talking about the death penalty in general, or a specific case?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by GameGeek
Did I miss something? Are we talking about the death penalty in general, or a specific case?

I'm not sure which case in particular he is referring to, but my understanding is that he is using the specific case to demonstrate a point.

[Aabraxan]

Originally posted by Cyclotron Secondly, and this is what I don't understand, why would they wait until the end to see the DNA? If they knew it would prove guilt, why would it matter when they reviewed the evidence?

Because if you're a death penalty defense attorney, you try to keep your client alive as long as possible.

But a murderer with life in prison will also not murder again, correct?

Not necessarily. He may simply not murder outside of prison again.

I belive laws and punishments are part and parcel of the same package of deterrance we use to stop people from committing crimes again.

Gotta agree here. The penalty aspect is intended to be a deterrent as well as punitive.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by GameGeek
Because if you're a death penalty defense attorney, you try to keep your client alive as long as possible.

But the situation was that the prosecutors knew it would show guilt. So again, why does it matter when it was reviewed?

Not necessarily. He may simply not murder outside of prison again.

Then that is a problem that needs to be fixed with better prisons and better prison policies. It is not a justification of the death penalty.

[Aabraxan]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
But the situation was that the prosecutors knew it would show guilt. So again, why does it matter when it was reviewed?

Sorry. I had read it to mean that defense knew that the DNA tests would show guilt. Different situation.

Then that is a problem that needs to be fixed with better prisons and better prison policies. It is not a justification of the death penalty.

I'm not saying that it is. I'm just saying that prison does not necessarily exclude more murder.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by GameGeek
Sorry. I had read it to mean that defense knew that the DNA tests would show guilt. Different situation.

Oh, well, that could be it too. I'm not sure.

I'm not saying that it is. I'm just saying that prison does not necessarily exclude more murder.

No, though it should.

And even with a reformed appeals process, people must still be given time to appeal, so murderers on death row will still have some years to be in prison, where they will also not necessarily be prevented from more murder.

[Aabraxan]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
No, though it should.

Should, yeah, but inmates are awfully clever at coming up with ways of killing each other.

And even with a reformed appeals process, people must still be given time to appeal, so murderers on death row will still have some years to be in prison, where they will also not necessarily be prevented from more murder.

And one of the common complaints that I've heard is that the length and complexity of the death penalty makes the "dollar cost" of putting someone to death really high. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that most of the figures that you find out there that say that putting someone to death costs more than keeping them in prison for life includes the costs of the appeals, attorneys' fees, psychological examinations, DNA tests, etc. Whether or not the same studies include the costs of litigating all of the lawsuits filed by lifers, I don't know.

[Cyclotron]

I feel like that I might have a better answer to this if I were not drunk. Stand by.