WHY has this taken so long? What is this news? IF you KILL you face the DEATH PENALTY. So logical but to some idiots out there, there is always an "excuse" why they killed!

No way... YOU KILLED someone. YOU DIE. Stop making excuses for those who kill They are NOT THE VICTIM, the VICTIM is dead and have no say but WE THE PEOPLE DO! You SHOULD DIE in the same way you killed your victim...

Poetic justice...

Think about this... that 5 year old didn't deserve to die via rape then murder. That homeless person didn't deserve to die while sleeping on the streets with bricks smashed into their face, that woman didn't deserve to die because she was in the "wrong place at the wrong time"...

None of them deserved to die but the person who killed them DOES! No excuses...

Where are the studies?

WHY has this taken so long? What is this news? IF you KILL you face the DEATH PENALTY. So logical but to some idiots out there, there is always an "excuse" why they killed!

No way... YOU KILLED someone. YOU DIE. Stop making excuses for those who kill They are NOT THE VICTIM, the VICTIM is dead and have no say but WE THE PEOPLE DO! You SHOULD DIE in the same way you killed your victim...

Poetic justice...

Think about this... that 5 year old didn't deserve to die via rape then murder. That homeless person didn't deserve to die while sleeping on the streets with bricks smashed into their face, that woman didn't deserve to die because she was in the "wrong place at the wrong time"...

None of them deserved to die but the person who killed them DOES! No excuses...

Welcome to the boards, nomad, hope you find it cozy here.

I've thougt about this from time to time and it seems to be almost a game the lawyers and advocacy groups play with our justice system, here are some of the cards they use.....

The police are racists and will pick on minorities or plant evidence to convict innocent black people.

The childhood of the accused was really, really terrible and if he had grown up in better circumstances, none of this would ever happen.

The accused was mentally insane at the time of the murders and needs pyschological help, not punishment.

If the person accused of murder evades the death penalty and winds up with "life in prison without the possibiltiy of parole, then phase two happens.

The convicted murderer has found Jesus and is really, really sorry for his crime.

The convicted murderer is a model prisoner and should be let out for his good behavior.

The convicted murderer was insane at the time of the murders but has undergone psychological treatment and is no longer a danger to society.

Our prisons are over crowded.

It truly is a two phase process for those who don't want the death penalty applied. Part one being to try and point out mitigating factors, then part two is to try and find some kind of reason why they should be freed. It would be nice if the victim got remembered while deliberating on whether or not someone who has committed murder should be spared the death penalty.

A person's life is the most precious thing they have, and once taken it cannot be given back. My favorite argument for the death penalty is the idea that people give back or give up what they've taken from someone else. One can see it in action by watching "Judge Judy" or any of the other court shows they got floating around out there. If someone breaks something, they have to pay for it. If someone provides a service that they aren't compensated for, compensation is ordered by the Judge. If someone takes another's life, then it should be their obligation to give up their own life, which is something of equal value, to the life they've taken and should be obliged to do so, dammit.

... Death Penalty Deters Crime!

Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.
The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations — pointing out flaws in the justice system — has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.
What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.

There's more (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html)


:rant:

I don't know if it's a deterrent, to others, or not. However, one thing is for certain, the executed murderer will never kill, or cause the killing of another, again. All of which cannot be said of any other sentence.

Where are the studies?

By all means, let's study it. Kill some murderers and we'll find out.

The US must be the only country in the western world were the death penalty is a deterrent.
Lets see.

I don't believe in the death penalty, for the simple reason that if one innocent person is put to death, that is one to many. For those who say

My aunt was murdered by a person who beat her, then tried to cut off her head with a dull hacksaw. My father was the one who had to identify the body. Words cannot describe how horrible this time was.
Do I want him dead? No. Would this bring my aunt back? No. By him being put to death, will it make our suffering any less? No.

I know it's suppose to be a deterrent but am surprised it is. If some of the instances that Darth brought up such as:

The accused was mentally insane at the time of the murders and needs pyschological help, not punishment.

then people are probably not thinking about the consequences of their actions at the time. In addition, if the person is just a criminal, hardened or two-bit junkie, etc. my suspicion is that their criminal mind already has placed them "above the law" leading them to believe they'd either never get caught or could beat the wrap.

I've never seen or heard of a study that has concluded that the death penalty is a deterent, so I'm still waiting for one to be posted.

I tend to be suspicous of statistical studies. It is difficult to account for factors such as the "likelihood of getting caught" as the economist who conducted the studies has claimed to do. The basic assumption of the studies is that the individuals committing murder are acting rationally.
My opinion is that the sort of people who commit murder are not deterred by the punishment for one of two reasons. Either because they commit the crime in "the heat of passion", circumstances such as finding their wife in bed with someone else, and are not thinking at all about consequences; or they are sociopathic and believe they are much more clever than the police so they will not be caught. Neither of these sorts of individuals are likely to be deterred no matter what the penalty.

The government does not have the authority to say who lives and who dies.

If you believe the death penalty is handed down too easily, check out the inmates on Texas' Death Row and let me know which ones you'd want moved to a halfway house next door to you!

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

SMW

The government does not have the authority to say who lives and who dies.
it's not the government that makes that decision, it's a jury of their peers.

If you believe the death penalty is handed down too easily, check out the inmates on Texas' Death Row and let me know which ones you'd want moved to a halfway house next door to you!

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

SMW

You know, several people have been on death row, but then were proven innocent and released. It's not unreasonable to assume someone who was innocent has been executed.

It's certainly not common, but murdering any individual who is innocent of a crime is outrageous.

I've never seen or heard of a study that has concluded that the death penalty is a deterent, so I'm still waiting for one to be posted.
100% of those executed never killed again.

happy?

it's not the government that makes that decision, it's a jury of their peers.

It's the government that decides to give the jury that choice.

You know, several people have been on death row, but then were proven innocent and released. It's not unreasonable to assume someone who was innocent has been executed.

It's certainly not common, but murdering any individual who is innocent of a crime is outrageous.
I agree it would be a shame to execute an innocent person. With DNA today, it's more and more doubtful that will happen, though.

Personally, I think being allowed to live out your life in prison when you've killed numerous people (like many of the inmates I posted a link to) is outrageous, as well. Life in prison beats death -- why should a murderer be given a better sentence than the one he/she handed down to their victim?

It's the government that decides to give the jury that choice.
if 12 strangers see enough evidence that you're a scumbag that is unfit to live, chances are, you're unfit to live.


(not that i think you're a scumbag, i'm just using you for an example)

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

On July 26, 2004 in Tarrant County, authorities were called to Coleman's residence where they found a nine year old black male deceased. An autopsy of victim concluded that the child was severely malnourished and underweight. Coleman and co-defendant were found to have restrained the child over a period of time depriving him of food.

i can't think of a more gruesome way to die:mad:

if 12 strangers see enough evidence that you're a scumbag that is unfit to live, chances are, you're unfit to live.


(not that i think you're a scumbag, i'm just using you for an example)

Yes, true; but I'd rather have 100 scumbags sentenced to life in prison then have 1 innocent man get executed.

Scumbag = http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/hankinsterry.htm

You know, several people have been on death row, but then were proven innocent and released. It's not unreasonable to assume someone who was innocent has been executed.

It's certainly not common, but murdering any individual who is innocent of a crime is outrageous.

The day a court recognizes that an innocent person has been put to death, I'll reconsider my backing of the death penalty. I might even accept life without parole, if the individual is locked in a single cell, w/no tv, radio, etc., for 24 hrs per day.

I dont think that a modern free society should have the ultimate penalty on they're books.
Society is/should be better than that.

People shouldn't murder innocent people either, but they do.

In a perfect world, there'd be no need for the death penalty.

People shouldnt murder thats right.
A convicted murderer doing hard time for 30 years or more will pay his dues for murder..
Killing them is revenge not justice.

People shouldnt murder thats right.
A convicted murderer doing hard time for 30 years or more will pay his dues for murder..
Killing them is revenge not justice.
Here's an idea... we'll just send 'em all to Ireland!!

What do y'all do with murderers there, Paul? Is there such a thing as 30 years of HARD LABOR? Here it's more like 30 years of watching Oprah (OK, OK, that could be considered cruel & unusual)

People shouldnt murder thats right.
A convicted murderer doing hard time for 30 years or more will pay his dues for murder..
Killing them is revenge not justice.
30 years isn't justice for tieing down a boy and starving him to death.

do you have any idea how long it takes to starve to death? months. that's the one thing worse than crucifixion.

Life in prison beats death -- why should a murderer be given a better sentence than the one he/she handed down to their victim?
Because we live in a society of law, order, and justice, not Hammurabi's "eye for an eye" society. Our legal system works for justice, not vengeance.

Because we live in a society of law, order, and justice, not Hammurabi's "eye for an eye" society. Our legal system works for justice, not vengeance.
Justice being the key word.

Here's an idea... we'll just send 'em all to Ireland!!

What do y'all do with murderers there, Paul? Is there such a thing as 30 years of HARD LABOR? Here it's more like 30 years of watching Oprah (OK, OK, that could be considered cruel & unusual)
Nah, you can keep your own murderers thanx.
Same problem here, sat tv and three meals.

30 years isn't justice for tieing down a boy and starving him to death.

do you have any idea how long it takes to starve to death? months. that's the one thing worse than crucifixion.
Your picking out individual cases here.
Whats needed is a firm just justice system.

Death penalty to all Neocons, Nazis, KKKs, and plain stupids who vote for the right wingers... Then I would agree with the death penalty...

The day a court recognizes that an innocent person has been put to death, I'll reconsider my backing of the death penalty. I might even accept life without parole, if the individual is locked in a single cell, w/no tv, radio, etc., for 24 hrs per day.



This makes no sense, your going to wait for the court to tell you an innocent person has been put to death before you'll reconsider your backing of the death penalty. One innocent person is one to many to be put to death.

This makes no sense, your going to wait for the court to tell you an innocent person has been put to death before you'll reconsider your backing of the death penalty. One innocent person is one to many to be put to death.

It make good sense to me. All the bleeding harts claim it has already happened. Yet they can't find one.
I don't want murderers in a position to kill again, even if its in jail. Nor do I want them, ever, to be considered for parole. Once a person has been convicted of taking another's life, unlawfully, that person has forfeited any right to life.

well...

Let's say dad doesn't like you and your friends playin baseball next to the house... and he says "If any one of your baseballs goes through one of my windows.. you're gettin a lashin'"... chances are you won't play baseball next to the house.

There are extremes to this... but set those aside.. stiff punishments always make someone think twice, I am all for them. As for the death penalty, I'm torn. Lots of issues... Cost of housing the criminal in the prison, should any human voluntarily take another human life? I honestly don't know.

Firstly I must say,I've studied this as far back as High School.
I had a course in both - Ethics - and - Logic - taught by a
Holy Cross Brother.I attended an Academy run by the order.
We passionatly discussed Abortion,Euthanasia and contemporary
Social ills.
I haven't changed my opinion on anything I learnt or studied.
But I have reconsidered some areas of Capital Punishment.

Yes,I believe one would be hard pressed to site an example of a wealthy
White sitting on Death Row.Or one Executed.
Most Popes will not abide ANY Death Penalty,but John Paul did
favor one for particularly heinous killings or that of slain State Leaders.
Popes have an Historic duty to Respect ALL Life.In God's eyes
ALL Life is considered precious.Even Charles Manson.
And the Pope is the vicar of Christ,on Earth.
I absolutely disagree with the Popes POV on Warring.

I consider the Death Penalty a fair and honest approach to someone
who takes,violently and with malice,another's life.
I also belive in special cases,Like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy to
extend their lives,sheerily for Psychological study.
Find out what makes a serial killer tick.Really nail down a phenomena
that is getting out of pace with Society.
I remember Ted Bundy Insisting.almost as a last ditch effort to commute
his Execution,that it was PORN that drove him crazy in Life.
Porn surely was THE culprit in Gacy's life.Gacy had an insane
craving for sex w/older boys.

Yes, true; but I'd rather have 100 scumbags sentenced to life in prison then have 1 innocent man get executed.

There's somethin intrinsically callous and unRight about that POV.
As if a Scumbag,whether guilty or No,is far less worthy justice
than a totally innocent man...Or Woman.
I hope Justice isn't blind.Because that POV surely is.
One reason a Defense Lawyer may insist to dress up {clean-up}
their Defendant is for just that reason.To impress upon the
Courts,and Jury how innocuously free from Grime and street tatter
their client is.That means perception,rules the day.
I've argued with friends that it is just out of respect for both
the Judge and the Courts,that a Hippy get his haircut,when in Court.
Because that is a negative impression a Hippy would leave and
instill upon a judge,that this Guy,isn't willing to even accomodate
or respect ... When in Rome,do as the Romans.
I Hippy wouldn't go to a - Gratefull Dead - Concert,after having his
hair cut butch.That would be seen & felt by his Peer as a negative.

I'm torn on this one too. I'd have to know how many innocent people are actually put to death... And it's impossible to know I suppose.

I say we have a death penalty only for people different than us (or me). That'll deter them from existing. Everybody wins!

Like Foolsworth said, "ALL life is considered precious". That's true. Why should we take another life to avenge the loss of one? It just ends with two people dead.

That said, I'm not voting on this because I am just not sure.

My vengeful side wants me to vote yes, but the even calm of Justice compels me to vote no. No person or system truely has the right to pass judgment on and take the life of another.

I've never seen or heard of a study that has concluded that the death penalty is a deterent, so I'm still waiting for one to be posted.
Oh ! fer cryin outl Loud.If The Death Penality isn't a deterrent
than either is 30 days in the hole.And wee wee should all knowed
that is.

My vengeful side wants me to vote yes, but the even calm of Justice compels me to vote no. No person or system truely has the right to pass judgment on and take the life of another.

If no person, or system has the right to pass judgment, then its time to do away with our judicial SYSTEM completely.

The death penalty just makes murderers out of the punishers. Shouldn't they be getting the death penalty for killing someone?

If no person, or system has the right to pass judgment, then its time to do away with our judicial SYSTEM completely.

Exactly.
What good is a penal code,if there is No final Penalty.
Taking the life of another is THE final Act.
Now,how that act was perpetrated is up to Society to deem.
If a Society has no backbone and becomes so dainty as to let
all bygone be bygone,than NO one is safe.
The inherent Goodness OR Badness of a Civilized Society should be
based on conformity and Compassion.
It is definatley NOT compassionate for a rogue Brute{killer} to live
whilst his victim met a heinous demise,as their last visions on Earth.

Its so hard for me to vote on this poll because they have to be 10000000000% sure they have the right suspect before commiting an act of murder themselves,and some of the times they arent!!

Its so hard for me to vote on this poll because they have to be 10000000000% sure they have the right suspect before commiting an act of murder themselves,and some of the times they arent!!


Who's not sure? First a jury (of 12) has to be sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed a CAPITAL MURDER. Then in a separate proceeding, the 12 jurors, all have to be convinced, again beyond a reasonable doubt, that the convicted murderer is beyond redemption and a continuing threat to society.
That sounds pretty damn sure to me.

Who's not sure? First a jury (of 12) has to be sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed a CAPITAL MURDER. Then in a separate proceeding, the 12 jurors, all have to be convinced, again beyond a reasonable doubt, that the convicted murderer is beyond redemption and a continuing threat to society.
That sounds pretty damn sure to me.
And yet, there are documented cases of those convicted and on death row later being exonerated.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/

And yet, there are documented cases of those convicted and on death row later being exonerated.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/


Yes. Through NEW science. Yet there is no evidence that an innocent person has ever been executed. Until a fool proof way of insuring that a convicted murderer can not kill again, I stand behind the death penalty.
You will find as many, if not more, cases of convicted murderers killing, again, after being convicted and imprisoned, than you will of innocent men being exonerated.

Yes. Through NEW science. Yet there is no evidence that an innocent person has ever been executed. Until a fool proof way of insuring that a convicted murderer can not kill again, I stand behind the death penalty.
You will find as many, if not more, cases of convicted murderers killing, again, after being convicted and imprisoned, than you will of innocent men being exonerated.

So it's okay execute innocent people as long as we get the guilty ones too? Come on now. Giving murderers life in prison prevents murderers from killing again while allowing the few who are wrongly convicted a chance to get exonerated.

So it's okay execute innocent people as long as we get the guilty ones too? Come on now. Giving murderers life in prison prevents murderers from killing again while allowing the few who are wrongly convicted a chance to get exonerated.


Wrong. On both counts. Name one innocent person who has been executed.

There are a number of convicted murderers who, while locked up, have killed yet again. Life in prison does not stop a killer from killing. Then there are the killers who have been released, and killed again.

The death penalty may not be a deterrent, but it damn well stops convicted killers from killing again. Until you find a solution that does the same, I'll support the death penalty.

Yes. Through NEW science. Yet there is no evidence that an innocent person has ever been executed. Until a fool proof way of insuring that a convicted murderer can not kill again, I stand behind the death penalty.
You will find as many, if not more, cases of convicted murderers killing, again, after being convicted and imprisoned, than you will of innocent men being exonerated.

There is no evidence of an innocent person being put to death for a very simple reason. The evidence is unavailable for testing with new methods because it is destroyed once the execution has taken place. This insures that no one will ever be able to prove an innocent person has been executed.

Wrong. On both counts. Name one innocent person who has been executed.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1121-05.htm

There are a number of convicted murderers who, while locked up, have killed yet again. Life in prison does not stop a killer from killing. Then there are the killers who have been released, and killed again.

How many murderers are convicted, get released and murder again? You're being delusional if you think this is a common occurance.

We haven't even tapped into other deficiencies in the judicial system. For example, juries are more likely to invoke the death penalty if the victim was a white female.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1121-05.htm



How many murderers are convicted, get released and murder again? You're being delusional if you think this is a common occurance.

We haven't even tapped into other deficiencies in the judicial system. For example, juries are more likely to invoke the death penalty if the victim was a white female.


I'm still waiting for your solution. Hell, anyones.

"The death penalty may not be a deterrent, but it damn well stops convicted killers from killing again. Until you find a solution that does the same, I'll support the death penalty."

There have been cases in the UK, were capital punishment is now abolished, of new evidence were in a few cases innocents were infact executed.

I voted no. While the death penalty may indeed be a deterent so would torture be a deterent and it is not used.

The fact that someone commits a crime, no matter how heinous a crime does not mean the state as a representative of the people should take that person's life. To do so coarsens and desensitizes the people represented by the state.

It is one thing to take a life out of anger. It is bad but understandable. It is quite another thing to take a life out of some form of cold reasoning. Were the victims relatives or loved ones to take revenge on the perpetrator by taking his life I could understand while not condoning their actions. For the state to do so in a cold, dispassionate way is something I can neither understand nor condone.

... Death Penalty Deters Crime!
...Big Deal!

That doesn't make execution a correct choice for action.

IMO - one of the things wrong with our penal system is that we give too much "rights" to the incarcerated murderers. I'm not a proponent of the death penalty, but I am a proponent of hard labor and no "recreational time" for convicted "death penalty" class murderers.

Feed them adequately, give them basic medical, and work their ass off... daylight till dark. I don't think this is "cruel and unusual" that they don't have TV, books, games, recreation time, etc. The person(s) that they have killed will obviously has none of those. Let them truly pay their debt to society via hard work and no "fringe benefits".

I'm not talking about a person who is in for grand theft - auto... I'm talking about one of the "monsters" that kill, torture, and/or mutilate human being(s) and would fall under the general category of a "death penalty" crime. In addition, this would allow for all appeals to be exhausted and any new evidence (in the case they are wrongfully incarcerated) to be brought to life.

Just my $.02

IMO - one of the things wrong with our penal system is that we give too much "rights" to the incarcerated murderers. I'm not a proponent of the death penalty, but I am a proponent of hard labor and no "recreational time" for convicted "death penalty" class murderers.

Feed them adequately, give them basic medical, and work their ass off... daylight till dark. I don't think this is "cruel and unusual" that they don't have TV, books, games, recreation time, etc. The person(s) that they have killed will obviously has none of those. Let them truly pay their debt to society via hard work and no "fringe benefits".

I'm not talking about a person who is in for grand theft - auto... I'm talking about one of the "monsters" that kill, torture, and/or mutilate human being(s) and would fall under the general category of a "death penalty" crime. In addition, this would allow for all appeals to be exhausted and any new evidence (in the case they are wrongfully incarcerated) to be brought to life.

Just my $.02
Agree, OP. I'd feel differently about the death penalty if there was really an alternative. Wish they'd bring back the chain-gangs and actually make hard time HARD again.

SMW

I voted "No" to this question because it is very vague and as worded suggests that one supports the death penalty for every case of murder, no matter the degree or the circumstances.

I am not morally against the death penalty in every situation, because I do believe that there are some people who are simply rabid dogs that need to be put down. However at the same time I recognize that genetic evidence has cleared a number of people on death row and I recognize the profound ethical and philosophical ramifications of government and thus societal sanctioning of murder. If we sanction and support the death penalty and even one innocent person gets executed then I believe we as a society are complicit in murder.

I agree Oldphart, there should be no mollycoddling. Make them rue the day they committed their crimes. Don't kill them but make them sometimes wish you had.

A convicted murderer doing hard time for 30 years or more will pay his dues for murder.

There’s a bit more to it than that, paul. You see, the convicted murderer may be “paying for” his crime, but it will cost the taxpayers (people who have done NOTHING WRONG) a great deal as well. And this is money that cannot be spent on other, better things – you know, like healthcare for millions of American children, ending poverty, public housing for the poor, securing our borders, improving our food safety, etc.

At 83, Frank Young was clearly in declining health.

Confined to a wheelchair, his hearing failing and mind flittering in and out of reality, Young's ailments required daily medications and close supervision. Since being diagnosed with diabetes more than two decades ago, he received costly treatment to combat the ravages of the disease, which ultimately led to the amputation of both his legs.

Young never paid a penny for any of his medical bills, including the amputations — a procedure that medical experts say costs an average of $70,232 a leg. In fact, Young didn't pay for his housing or his meals for 46 years.

Until his death on June 11, Young was the longest serving murderer in the Tennessee prison system. His bills, including $1,800 for his burial, were paid for entirely by taxpayers.

Young's time in prison cost taxpayers more than $1.1 million, a Tennessean analysis shows. The average annual cost of incarcerating a murderer is more than $22,207, according to Department of Correction statistics. With 3,344 murderers doing time, the bill for taxpayers is more than $74 million a year.

The cost of keeping killers behind bars — approximately $60 a day — is roughly the same as for other inmates. But because murderers typically serve longer sentences, these criminals prove far more expensive for the Department of Correction.

Longer sentences mean that many killers grow old in prison. Murderers make up less than 18 percent of the prison population, but they comprise more than 29 percent of the inmates over 50.

As in the case of Young, who was convicted in 1960 of murdering Joanna Gail Huffstetler, 17, of Knox County, older prisoners display the same geriatric problems as the general population. Like many older Americans, their problems are expensive to fix and costly to taxpayers.

The cost of housing inmates like Young at the Deberry Special Needs Facility is $112 a day or $40,880 a year. He was at that facility for the past 14 years. – The Tennessean (http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS1302/606250358)

Cost to the Community
One of the most disturbing but least discussed aspects of homicide is its cost to the community, both in terms of actual dollars and its reputation. The Tennessean, a Nashville newspaper, recently did a study of the cost of homicides to the taxpayers. The report stated that "an aspect of murder routinely overlooked is the financial impact on families and the community. In most murders, that impact encompasses a wide and unlikely circle of people."

The study found the average cost of a murder to the community—from the moment a police investigation begins to the time the offender has served his sentence—is more than $628,648. Expenses include the cost of the police investigation, the trial, usually including a public defender or court appointed attorney for the offender; expenses for the medical examiner's office, and the cost of incarcerating the offender, which escalates as the offender grows older. That figure also includes clean-up of crime scenes, trauma center bills for victims that are never paid and are ultimately passed on to paying customers through higher costs, and burial expenses for the victim.

But that is not all of the costs. The Tennessean reports that "national experts say more than a third of all families of homicide victims seek some form of public assistance within months of the murder. For the families of murderers, the same may be true."

If a homicide is committed while the victim is at work, the business must pay worker's compensation premiums while dealing with lost business if the public perceives the location to be unsafe. Most businesses usually provide services to the families of the victims as well.

Homicides even affect the life expectancy rates used by insurance companies to determine risks and calculate premiums. Jean Lamaire, a professor of insurance and actuarial science at the Wharton School, states, "Every dollar spent on a murder investigation or incarcerating a murderer is money that can't be used for other government services.” – Charlotte PD (http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/CMPD/Library/HTF:+Key+Findings.htm)

So, putting murderer in prison for life affects not only the victim's family (which gets no closure to their pain) but society as a whole, as well. In many MANY ways.

Far better to put them to death twelve minutes after their last appeal is denied. Bullet to the head. Done. And without massive cost to the taxpayer and to society as a whole.

Good points, Frannie.

Yes. Through NEW science.

Exactly. With today's CSI techniques and always-advancing technology, the odds against convicting an innocent person are astronomical.

You will find as many, if not more, cases of convicted murderers killing, again, after being convicted and imprisoned, than you will of innocent men being exonerated.

Here's some (slightly dated, but still quite valid) food for thought...

Likelihood of Re-offense by Type of Crime Committed - 1994

Recidivism rates vary a bit by the type of crime for which a prisoner is serving time. In 1994 a total of 272,111 state prison inmates were released. On average, 68% of them were rearrested within three years of their release and just over half (52%) were back in prison. Although recidivism rates are high across all criminal categories, they are marginally lower for those serving time for the most violent crimes.

For the category that covers all violent crimes — homicide, rape, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault — the rearrest rate was 62% and the rate at which prisoners were returned to prison within three years was 49%. However, within this category it was the lesser violent crimes that had the highest rates of recidivism. Robbery and assault had high rearrest rates, 70% and 65% respectively.

Of murderers released, a smaller percentage was rearrested, although still alarmingly high at 41%. --Social Issues Reference (http://social.jrank.org/pages/1350/Prisons-Likelihood-Re-offense-by-Type-Crime-Committed.html)

Put THAT in yer "oh those poor murderers!" pipe and smoke it. :rolleyes:

There’s a bit more to it than that, paul. You see, the convicted murderer may be “paying for” his crime, but it will cost the taxpayers (people who have done NOTHING WRONG) a great deal as well. And this is money that cannot be spent on other, better things – you know, like healthcare for millions of American children, ending poverty, public housing for the poor, securing our borders, improving our food safety, etc.




So, putting murderer in prison for life affects not only the victim's family (which gets no closure to their pain) but society as a whole, as well. In many MANY ways.

Far better to put them to death twelve minutes after their last appeal is denied. Bullet to the head. Done. And without massive cost to the taxpayer and to society as a whole.why bother with a bullet?

It's not much cheaper putting them to death. Most times the death sentence isn't carried out for years, sometimes decades and all that time appeals have to be paid for in addition to the everyday cost of keeping the person imprisoned on death row.

This isn't China where they are arrested on Monday, convicted on Tuesday and get a bullet in the back of the head on Wednesday.

I am a proponent of hard labor and no "recreational time" for convicted "death penalty" class murderers.

Feed them adequately, give them basic medical, and work their ass off... daylight till dark. I don't think this is "cruel and unusual" that they don't have TV, books, games, recreation time, etc. The person(s) that they have killed will obviously has none of those. Let them truly pay their debt to society via hard work and no "fringe benefits".

I'm not talking about a person who is in for grand theft - auto... I'm talking about one of the "monsters" that kill, torture, and/or mutilate human being(s) and would fall under the general category of a "death penalty" crime. In addition, this would allow for all appeals to be exhausted and any new evidence (in the case they are wrongfully incarcerated) to be brought to life.

Just my $.02

I'd take it one step further, OldPhart. I'd bring back hard labor (digging ditches, clearing land, whatever) and chain gangs. I'd put them to work growing their own damned food. Work hard and you get to eat a decent meal at the end of the day.

If the crops fail? Oh well, tough luck. You go to bed hungry. Just like millions of law-abiding citizens do every day.

:mad:

I'd take it one step further, OldPhart. I'd bring back hard labor (digging ditches, clearning land, whatever) and chain gangs. I'd put them to work growing their own damned food. Work hard and you get to eat a decent meal at the end of the day.

If the crops fail? Oh well, tough luck. You go to bed hungry. Just like millions of law-abiding citizens do every day.

:mad:
sounds like you'd like Phoenix, i know i like Phoenix...when the folks leave jail, they don't want to go back.

It's not much cheaper putting them to death. Most times the death sentence isn't carried out for years, sometimes decades and all that time appeals have to be paid for in addition to the everyday cost of keeping the person imprisoned on death row.

This is something else I'd change, if I had the power. The endless appeals are out of control, and a huge waste of time, money, and energy.

It took six years just to extradite Charles Ng from Canada to California, mainly because Canada resisted sending someone to a possible death sentence (wimpy Canuckians!). Since coming to California, the case has cost Calaveras County $3.2 million, an amount which would have bankrupt the county except for the fact that the state agreed to reimburse the county until 1995.

I'd like to see the appeals process reduced so that a convicted criminal gets either five appeals or five years, whichever comes first. If they can't prove their "innocence" in that time, bye-bye murdering fuckhead. And again, twelve minutes after that last appeal is denied - GONEski.

why bother with a bullet?

Well, we could put 'em in a nice tub of water and toss 'em a toaster...

sounds like you'd like Phoenix, i know i like Phoenix...when the folks leave jail, they don't want to go back.

Joe Arpaio is my hero. :)

Joe Arpaio should be appointed National Sheriff.

This is something else I'd change, if I had the power. The endless appeals are out of control, and a huge waste of time, money, and energy.

It took six years just to extradite Charles Ng from Canada to California, mainly because Canada resisted sending someone to a possible death sentence (wimpy Canuckians!). Since coming to California, the case has cost Calaveras County $3.2 million, an amount which would have bankrupt the county except for the fact that the state agreed to reimburse the county until 1995.
yet they weren't about to let him loose in Canada either:rolleyes:

Well, we could put 'em in a nice tub of water and toss 'em a toaster...
why waste the water and toaster either...just throw them in their grave and fill it in.

why waste the water and toaster either...just throw them in their grave and fill it in.

As long as we can be sure they don't dig themselves out, I'm game.

Joe Arpaio should be appointed National Sheriff.
tents won't work everwhere...but the bologna on white bread sammich w/ a Dixie cup of kool-aid seems to be catching on.

I'd take it one step further, OldPhart. I'd bring back hard labor (digging ditches, clearing land, whatever) and chain gangs. I'd put them to work growing their own damned food. Work hard and you get to eat a decent meal at the end of the day.

If the crops fail? Oh well, tough luck. You go to bed hungry. Just like millions of law-abiding citizens do every day.

:mad:

Absolutely... work for their own keep. But, this will not happen with our "rights of the few is greater than the rights of the many" mentality that we seem to be in the grip of now.

As long as we can be sure they don't dig themselves out, I'm game.
if they can get out of a 6 foot hole filled with the dirt that came out of it, i'd let them go.

Absolutely... work for their own keep. But, this will not happen with our "rights of the few is greater than the rights of the many" mentality that we seem to be in the grip of now.

A "grip" which started 231 years ago when some "radicals" got together and decided that there are certain rights that are inalienable and should never be infringed upon no matter how small the minority group that individual belongs.

The rights to Habeus Corpus, a fair trial under the law and to be free from cruel and unusual punishments among them...

Maybe instead of killing them outright, we should just cut off their hands and deny them disability. If we find out they're innocent, then we'll just give them new hands. "We can rebuild him, better than he was before; better, faster, stronger. We have the technology."

The rights to Habeus Corpus, a fair trial under the law and to be free from cruel and unusual punishments among them...

Whats cruel and unusual about having to work for your keep? Never mind, I forgot who I was asking.

Joe Arpaio should be appointed National Sheriff.
Were I his superior, I would fire him and burn his personal belongings before he could get them out of his office. A proponent of the War on Drugs is no friend of mine when they're that stupid.

A "grip" which started 231 years ago when some "radicals" got together and decided that there are certain rights that are inalienable and should never be infringed upon no matter how small the minority group that individual belongs.

The rights to Habeus Corpus, a fair trial under the law and to be free from cruel and unusual punishments among them...

I said nothing, Dharma, about a right to a fair trial. Nor do I think that working to pay off your debt to society is "cruel and unusual" (maybe if we strapped them to fire ant hills... but I digress). If you sit around, watching TV, reading a book, and/or waiting for your basketball game to start that afternoon... I just don't consider that a "fair punishment" for beating to death a woman and a few kids... but that's just me.

:rolleyes:

Were I his superior, I would fire him and burn his personal belongings before he could get them out of his office. A proponent of the War on Drugs is no friend of mine when they're that stupid.
sheriffs are elected. the people of Maricopa County disagree with you.

This isnt a financial question. Every western country wastes money on something or a whole lot of things everyday.
The point is, that a nation is supposed to rise above the convicted,the state killing someone who killed someone has too many similarities. The state should set the standards of decency and humanitarianism, not revenge.

When female prisoners complained to Joe Arpaio that he shouldn't have male chain gangs because it was discriminatory against men he answered them by instituting female chaingangs.

Three cheers for Joe Arpaio.

I like the sound of Joe.

I've been persuaded to vote no on this by all the good points brought up in this discussion.

However, I too wish that criminals would not be coddled quite so much. Chain gangs/hard labor/etc. seem like such a good idea. Then at least the convicts would contribute some work to society.

sheriffs are elected. the people of Maricopa County disagree with you.
Since 80% of the populace or so believes that drugs need to remain outlawed (Arpaio's mainstay), I will gladly stomp on their votes with my iron boot.

Studies reveal: The Nazis detered crime...Thats right all you need is a elaborate system of work and death camps as well as vicious brown shirts beating and shooting holigans in the street and your crime rate will drop to virtually zero!!! Sign up today.

Not to Godwin or anything but this study doesn't mean shit.

The death penalty is immoral in that it murders innocent people.

Prisons should be less cozy. Life in prison would be a determent. As it is Prison is merely a plce where the cops let violtent thugs rule and watch cable TV. Hardly punishment for evil violent offenders.

Shouldnt be too difficult to find those type of people.

[QUOTE=moderate]Wrong. On both counts. Name one innocent person who has been executed.


How about Barbara Graham.
Just watch the intense Oscar-winning movie with Susan Hayward's
sterling and believable performance :
{{{{{{{{{{{ I Want To Live }}}}}}}}}} 1958

[QUOTE=moderate]Wrong. On both counts. Name one innocent person who has been executed.


How about Barbara Graham.
Just watch the intense Oscar-winning movie with Susan Hayward's
sterling and believable performance :
{{{{{{{{{{{ I Want To Live }}}}}}}}}} 1958

Thats a great source, a fictional film, about a drug addicted prostitute who beat a woman to death. Hollywood has always been my favorite source for factual information.(sarcasm intended)

Thats a great source, a fictional film, about a drug addicted prostitute who beat a woman to death. Hollywood has always been my favorite source for factual information.(sarcasm intended)
He was obviously kidding.

He was obviously kidding.


You've got your quote wrong.

Who was kidding?

You've got your quote wrong.

Who was kidding?
Forgot to take out the quote tags that you had in your message, it's edited now. So sorry.

Foolsworth was kidding.

I am a fairly gentle-natured individual.
I cringed at the death and mayhem I observed during my time in the Armed Forces and while at war.

I mourn the passing of old friends.
I shed a tear each and every time I witness an unattended animal turned into road-kill on the highways and country roads.
Hell, I weep at Kodak commercials for God's sake.

But I tell you this;
If they let me, I would, without reservation, volunteer to go down to the local State or Federal prison, and be the son of a bitch who throws the switch on convicted killers, rapists, and child molesters.

For murderers, rapists, and child molesters I would shed not one tear.
I would throw the switch, and I would watch with bemusement and a feeling of satisfaction as the jackass in question writhed in agony, jerking and snapping & popping like bacon in a frying pan. Sparks flying, smoke billowing out of every orifice, and the smell of grilled meat heavy in the air.
The family and clergy of the convicted one would look on in horror, as the sentence was carried out with brutal and calculated efficiency.

Later on, I would use a spatula to scrape the crispy remains of the convict off the electric chair, and cheerfully help the mortuary crew bag the remains for cremation or burial.

Then I would go home, have a beer or two, and sleep like a baby.

Murderers, rapists, and child-molesters?
Please take note; there are volunteers like me all over the country.

I truly hope this is a deterrent.

:eek:

Forgot to take out the quote tags that you had in your message, it's edited now. So sorry.

Foolsworth was kidding.

I'm not so sure he was. A lot of people thought (some still do) that she was convicted on evidence that was obtained illegally, by the police. But laws in 1953 were a lot different than they are now.

I'm not so sure he was. A lot of people thought (some still do) that she was convicted on evidence that was obtained illegally, by the police. But laws in 1953 were a lot different than they are now.
Considering the language he used to describe the movie I'm pretty sure he was kidding. Then again you're pretty new, and I wouldn't expect you to be used to Foolsworth yet. ;)

I'll have to take your word for it.

I have a Question:

Why is it that some people in here see "life in Prison" as too easy a punishment?