2nd condemned Texas inmate in as many days executed

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, I know of no study which demonstrates that DP has provided any savings at all. As a matter of fact, I have seen a number of studies which demonstrate the opposite.

[Kuciwalker]

IIRC in those studies the savings are lost in the legal fees. If that's the case, it's not a strong argument against pro-DPers because many argue that the current legal restrictions on the DP are too severe, and if they were removed the legal fees would probably drop.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
IIRC in those studies the savings are lost in the legal fees.

Some of it, but even the prisoner housing cost is similar. The prisoners are housed for less time, but are placed in more expensive accomodations.

But yes, legal fees are there. You should also note that it's not simply more appeals which cause higher legal fees, however. The prosecution and the defence each spend more in the original trial as well. Trials last longer so the court costs are higher too.

And yes, of course reducing the ability of the accused to defend himself will reduce these. However, it introduces much greater scope for error. Adding more DP trials to the mix has some very obvious consequences...

The public has already shown itself to be extremely squeamish about possible wrongful executions. I don't think they would stand for it if 10 or 20 innocent people were being killed every year.

The DP is a silly half measure as currently practiced in the US. The public doesn't have the belly to allow it to be practiced in such a way that the possible positive benefits come out. It's an anachronism in the context of a modern, functioning criminal justice system.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Some of it, but even the prisoner housing cost is similar. The prisoners are housed for less time, but are placed in more expensive accomodations.

These prisoners probably would be anyway, because they'd be higher security.

But yes, legal fees are there. You should also note that it's not simply more appeals which cause higher legal fees, however. The prosecution and the defence each spend more in the original trial as well. Trials last longer so the court costs are higher too.

Again, they probably last longer in part because of the nature of the crime and in part because of the requested sentence. Some or most of the costs would remain even without the DP.

And yes, of course reducing the ability of the accused to defend himself will reduce these. However, it introduces much greater scope for error. Adding more DP trials to the mix has some very obvious consequences...

As I noted in response to Rufus. I'm not comfortable with that, but some of the other proponents are.

The DP is a silly half measure as currently practiced in the US. The public doesn't have the belly to allow it to be practiced in such a way that the possible positive benefits come out. It's an anachronism in the context of a modern, functioning criminal justice system.

I agree. We need to change our attitude towards the DP, keep it or lose it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
IIRC in those studies the savings are lost in the legal fees. If that's the case, it's not a strong argument against pro-DPers because many argue that the current legal restrictions on the DP are too severe, and if they were removed the legal fees would probably drop.

You aren't serious are you?

[Kuciwalker]

Go away, this is a conversation for adults

[SlowwHand]

Buck up, because one is soon scheuled.
I'll go find out when. Hold on. BRB.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


These prisoners probably would be anyway, because they'd be higher security.

I'm fairly certain that the comparison is usually done relative to other people convicted of crimes which could have been taken capital.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Buck up, because one is soon scheuled.
I'll go find out when. Hold on. BRB.

At this time of night? Is the place open 24hrs?

[SlowwHand]

3/20, 3/28, 3/29, 4/18, 4/26

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/scheduledexecutions.htm

And don't EVEN try to play the race card.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I'm not talking about mere felons and I'm not talking about legal rights, you tool.

You sounded absolute in using the words, "no rights" you doofus.

[Kuciwalker]

Only if you can't read.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


This is actually not true.
Think of a man who is known to be violent and the strain of having him in your custody.
Now multiply.

Think of a child that is unwanted and unloved, and the strain of having it in your society. Now multiply.

Think of a senior citizen with a debilitating but not fatal disease requiring expensive long-term treatment, and the strain of having him in your medical system. Now multiply.

You point?

[SlowwHand]

That is retarded, and that's the only acknowledgement you'll get on that comparison.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
This is actually the only reasonable argument for the dp: cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately for both conservatives and liberals, it's also an argument for abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church gets this, but hardly anyone else does.

Remind me: what crime has the unborn baby or the terminally ill or the vegetative patient committed to deserve execution???