Capital Punishment: Is it right?

[C1ay]

Does anyone know the mean amount of time a convict waits on death row?

According to Texas, a leading death penalty state, the average time on the row is 10.43 years....

[Mercedes Benzene]

According to Texas, a leading death penalty state, the average time on the row is 10.43 years....

 

I figured it would be somewhere around there, although Texas has death penalty laws and processes relatively unlike those of most other US states.

[C1ay]

I figured it would be somewhere around there, although Texas has death penalty laws and processes relatively unlike those of most other US states.

Come to think of it, Texas probably puts 'em down quicker so the average time is probably longer than the time in Texas. Here's an article on it.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Is the majority of time spent on death row due to the appeal process? Becuase I cannot think of any other reason for keeping them there that long. :D

[sebbysteiny]

It seems the problem with the Death penalty is that you cannot reverse it. So the appaeals and re appeals and re reappeals process is LONG. The trials are longer and everything is longer and more expensive.

 

So to summerise this debate, the tax payers are having to pay a fortune to allow the victim's families to see their purpitrator die. Some people call this justice, but is this 'justice' worth the large extra costs that could be spent on more policemen to prevent further victims of crime? Why can't the victim's relatives be satisfied to see the murderer locked up for life never to return to the streets? Admittidly, I've never been connected to a victim of a murderer, but would they rather that innocent and good people die as victims to crime, or for lack of money in the health service, or even that promising talented kid whose school lacks the resources to give him a future, than god forgid be satisfied with knowning that the victim's freedom but not life is over?

[C1ay]

Is the majority of time spent on death row due to the appeal process? Becuase I cannot think of any other reason for keeping them there that long. :D

Yes. It is unacceptable that anyone be put to death by the system that doesn't truely deserve it, i.e. no mistakes allowed. For this reason the system checks, double checks and double checks the double checks. In light of all of this and new fangled technology like DNA testing we are finding people on death row that are not guilty :) This adds yet another reason to back away from this outdated practice...FWIW, I was a very ardent death penalty supporter until I reviewed the facts for myself.....

[sebbysteiny]

So the death penalty is definately expensive and makes mistakes even with the extra expense. On top of that, it is highly dubious whether killing a murderer is more morally correct than keeping him in prison for life.

 

It's not looking good for the death penalty supporters at the moment as far as I can see :D.

 

But surely this seems too easy. Are we missing anything?

[Zythryn]

But surely this seems too easy. Are we missing anything?

 

Yes, the rather major point of protecting society. Now, if you can guarentee that prisoners will not escape, will not be released early (yes, it has happened in the past, although very rarely) and will not 'infect' others then I will happily oppose the dp.

 

Personally, I think incarceration (either for it's own sake or on the way to the dp) means society already failed. However, our justice system is there to protect society and a dead murderer isn't going to escape.

[C1ay]

Now, if you can guarentee that prisoners will not escape, will not be released early (yes, it has happened in the past, although very rarely) and will not 'infect' others then I will happily oppose the dp.

If you will guarantee to cover the cost perhaps I will support the death penalty. As it is I cannot remember any "death row" inmates escaping in modern times. BTW, do you consider it an acceptable error that some innocent people are put to death (yes, it has happened in the past, although very rarely)?

[sebbysteiny]

But surely this seems too easy. Are we missing anything?

Yes, the rather major point of protecting society.

 

Oh yeah, that old chestnut. And lets not forget deterence.

 

So the death penalty is definately expensive and makes mistakes even with the extra expense. On top of that, it is highly dubious whether killing a murderer is more morally correct than keeping him in prison for life. However, on the other hand, it does provide deterence which could potentially more than justify the extra expense of keeping the death penalty.

 

Thought it looked too easy.

 

Although I see that issues of keeping the convict in prison can arise, I'm not personally convinced. In a life means life sentence, all one needs is the will to keep the murderer in prison and I can't see why this should be any trouble. And escapes are rare. Mind you, he could be found innocent; that should get the scoundrel out.

 

But I think this 'infect' thingy is quite a good point. Does that happen? Are there any ways of reducing / minimising the problem? Is it likely to have a significant impact on crime outside of prison? Any criminal psycologists happen to be hanging around here?

 

But if we are simply looking at which type of sentence is better for the protection of society, my calculations are that we must work out the amount of crime reduced by deterance of the dp (less the deterence of a life means life sentence) and see if that is more than the amount of crime reduced by using the amount saved scrapping the dp to buy police officers less the 'infect' factor.

 

Doesn't look like an easy equation.

[Jay-qu]

I voted no, partly because it seems unreasonable to take someones life, no matter what they have done. And also partly because anyone considered deserving of such a punishment would be getting off easy! life in prison would be much worse me-thinks.

[Zythryn]

Oh yeah, that old chestnut. And lets not forget deterence.

 

Me thinks you are putting words in my mouth.

For the record I don't think the death penalty acts as a deterent.

I don't, and never have, been under the impression it is cheaper than housing and inmate for life.

I also don't believe it is the perfect system. I do believe there is something better. At the moment, I am not sure what it is.

And, I am actually on the fence regarding the death penalty. I understand it isn't perfect, and that needs to change. Perhaps our current system is too loose with the DP.

 

Don't release murderers and don't allow them to walk out of jail and perhaps the DP would be unnecessary. Again, the ONLY reason for it in my opinion is to protect society.

 

Although I see that issues of keeping the convict in prison can arise, I'm not personally convinced. In a life means life sentence, all one needs is the will to keep the murderer in prison and I can't see why this should be any trouble. And escapes are rare. Mind you, he could be found innocent; that should get the scoundrel out.

 

But I think this 'infect' thingy is quite a good point. Does that happen? Are there any ways of reducing / minimising the problem? Is it likely to have a significant impact on crime outside of prison? Any criminal psycologists happen to be hanging around here?

 

From the articles I have seen, this does happen. I have heard people refer to doing hard time as getting a PHD in crime. There is a way to solve that issue without the death penalty. That would be solitary confinement. However, some would call the phsychological torture and inhuman.

 

But if we are simply looking at which type of sentence is better for the protection of society, my calculations are that we must work out the amount of crime reduced by deterance of the dp (less the deterence of a life means life sentence) and see if that is more than the amount of crime reduced by using the amount saved scrapping the dp to buy police officers less the 'infect' factor.

 

Doesn't look like an easy equation.

 

Again, the deterence factor, from what I have read, is virtually zero. Again though, that is irrelavent in my opinion.

 

C1ay, no I don't see that the fact that some innocent people have been put to death as acceptable. The system desperately needs improvement. I also don't see it acceptable that people have been killed with guns, rope, knives, baseball bats and drugs. I am not for getting rid of guns, ropes, knives, baseball bats or drugs:)

 

As for the money, I will spend the extra money if it means that an innocent person is not killed later by an escapee or someone released due to overcrowding or clerical error (note, early releases have happened for sex offenders and people who were accused of murder AFTER their release, no murderers that I am aware of).

 

Jay, I agree with you, life in prison is a greater penalty than death, as long as you can keep them in there.

 

 

edit- parole seems to be a different issue http://www.al.com/newsflash/election/index.ssf?/base/news-23/1156533254125000.xml&storylist=alabamanews

[C1ay]

C1ay, no I don't see that the fact that some innocent people have been put to death as acceptable. The system desperately needs improvement. I also don't see it acceptable that people have been killed with guns, rope, knives, baseball bats and drugs. I am not for getting rid of guns, ropes, knives, baseball bats or drugs:)

Yes, bad people kill innocent people with many things. How many of these things has the justice system used to kill innocent people?

 

As for the money, I will spend the extra money if it means that an innocent person is not killed later by an escapee or someone released due to overcrowding or clerical error (note, early releases have happened for sex offenders and people who were accused of murder AFTER their release, no murderers that I am aware of).

Can you provide any support for the claim that actual "death row" inmates have escaped, been released due to over crowding and clerical errors? Without factual proof of these your argument is a strawman. BTW, early releases of sex offenders and convicts turned murderers after the fact is not evidence of actual "death row" inmates returning to threaten the public by the means you've claimed to occur.

[Zythryn]

I never said death row inmates have been released, I claimed murderers have been. Arguing on the side of the DP my position is actually that NO death row inmates escape (although that is quite possible).

 

My claim is that murderers have escaped or been released early. The final link in my previous post has a url to a story about 4 murderers being paroled (worse in my mind). I don't know if any of them will/have killed again. I dearly hope they don't.

[C1ay]

I never said death row inmates have been released, I claimed murderers have been. Arguing on the side of the DP my position is actually that NO death row inmates escape (although that is quite possible).

 

My claim is that murderers have escaped or been released early. The final link in my previous post has a url to a story about 4 murderers being paroled (worse in my mind). I don't know if any of them will/have killed again. I dearly hope they don't.

The "on topic" discussion is about the death penalty though. These other convicts are just that, non-death-row inmates. It's unfortunate that they were not properly secured but that is not the fault of the death penalty, or the lack thereof, but a fault of their jailers. We do have the means to lock such people away for good. Supermax prisons secure the worst of the bad. They house inmates like Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, Eric Rudolph and Ted Kaczynski, all living at ADX Florence. These inmates will never harm anyone again and IMO it's not worth the millions to get them the death penalty instead of the life sentences they are now serving in isolation.

[Cedars]

Can you provide any support for the claim that actual "death row" inmates have escaped, been released due to over crowding and clerical errors? Without factual proof of these your argument is a strawman. BTW, early releases of sex offenders and convicts turned murderers after the fact is not evidence of actual "death row" inmates returning to threaten the public by the means you've claimed to occur.

 

Glad you asked!

 

Heres one from last november:

http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.html?id=27575e73-e226-41d5-a520-87e57b7404d4

 

Heres another which implys there were previous ones (from death row)

 

Brothers Linwood and James Briley were executed in Virginia on October 12, 1984 and April 18, 1985, respectively. Linwood had murdered a disc jockey in 1979 during a crime spree. During the same spree, James raped and killed a woman (who was eight months pregnant) and killed her five-year-old son. On May 31, 1984, the Briley brothers organized and led an escape of five death-row inmates (the largest death-row breakout in U.S. history). They were at large for 19 days.

 

Is this name familiar?

On June 10, 1977, James Earl Ray, who was serving a 99-year term for killing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., escaped with six other inmates from the Brushy Mountain State Prison in Tennessee (he was captured three days later).

 

Life without parole means more time to plot an escape:

On April 3, 1988 three murderers serving life sentences without the chance of parole escaped from the maximum-security West Virginia Penitentiary. One, Bobby Stacy, had killed a Huntington police officer in 1981. At the time, he had been free on bail after having been arrested for shooting an Ohio patrolman. (meaning at the time he killed the policeman he was on bail)

 

And my personal favorite, only because of the reputation Joliet (max security) has:

On February 11, 1990 six convicts, including three murderers, escaped from their segregation cells in the maximum security Joliet Correctional Center in Illinois by cutting through bars on their cells, breaking a window, and crossing a fence. In what may be the understatement of the year, a prison spokesman told reporters: "Obviously, this is a breach of security."

 

Yesterday I read a post of yours and asked for some clarification. Maybe you missed it so I will repost it here.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

There's a few but the vast majority of would be killers are not vividly aware of the consequences of their actions.... /Quote

 

Cedars replied:

And you know this because ...?

[ronthepon]

One can argue against DP by saying that to killing them is a method of removing them from society, a result that could be achieved by life imprisonment (unbreakable jails).

 

Naturally, keeping them alive will cost more than having them buried, and the whole matter of having them snuff it will get a load off the society's back... and there's nothing that can be said about what the person feels other than a number of days of fear, followed by realisation, acceptance and then unbreakable slumber. (something that would happen sometime or other)

 

But still, what right does anybody have to end it for another person? I refuse to acnowledge the self given right to kill that 'society' gets itself to have.

 

The best bet would be to give the criminals the choice to wether they want to die all at once or to die by degrees (i.e. life imprisonment).