Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, we should keep it

13 (24.5%)

No, we should ban it

40 (75.5%)

Total Members Voted: 52

[noodle0117]

So today I've stumbled upon a particular forum topic on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/249hcu/deathpenalty_analysis_reveals_extent_of_wrongful/

The thread is based on a death-penalty analysis that states that about 4% of US death row prisoners are innocent.

And the comment section is wild about the horrific inexcusable immoralities of sentencing people to death.

As for me, I am perfectly fine with the death penalty. Why?

Because it's more economical than lifetime imprisonment.

4% might seem a little high, but even with a 1:20 innocent to guilty ratio, I'll still stick with my original beliefs on execution (man this makes me sound evil).

So what are your thoughts on the death penalty?

[cerapa]

Far as I know, execution actually costs more money than keeping people in prison. Mostly because of court costs. Just something I have heard, not something I have investigated myself.

[pisskop]

Evil?  I suppose placing a value on human life is considered 'evil' by western culture, but would you support the death penalty if you could be sure all were guilty?

I support it; there are some crimes that are point blank insurmountable.  Of everything I do think is wrong with America's justice system death penalty isn't one.

[Levi]

I'm against it.  If you are a criminal, I think its important to have both punishment and rehabilitation (and maybe compensation?).  If you punish with death, you can't really rehabilitate. 

(disclaimer, I don't live in a country with the death penalty)

4% might seem a little high, but even with a 1:20 innocent to guilty ratio, I'll still stick with my original beliefs on execution (man this makes me sound evil).

Totally makes you sound evil     I mean, what if you were one of the twenty?  Its almost too horrible to think of.  And frankly, if 1 in 20 death-row inmates are innocent, does that mean 1 in 20 prisoners are innocent?  You guys gotta fix your justice system!

[GlyphGryph]

From an idealistic perspective, I'm fine with the death penalty. I think at least offering a death option to permanent imprisonment should be a thing as well. But then, I place a much higher value on the human condition than I do on the human life.

But from a practical perspective, the death penalty just... isn't very good. It's expensive, it's got a high error rate, it is a complete failure as a deterrent.. there's just no much reason for it.

[Yoink]

I'm rather conflicted on the subject.
On the one hand, with the amount of power 1st-world governments have over their people already, giving them the power of life and death over them seems like a terrible thing. On the other, keeping criminals housed and fed can be a ridiculous drain on finances (since they aren't allowed to just chuck 'em in a dungeon these days), so it's a bit unfair to expect them to do otherwise.

This is one of those rare subjects where my opinion on the matter can actually be swayed by a well-made argument.

[Arx]

For reference. There is certainly still valid debate to be had, though.

[palsch]

Far as I know, execution actually costs more money than keeping people in prison. Mostly because of court costs. Just something I have heard, not something I have investigated myself.

Easily more expensive to execute people in the US.

Quick overview, a few years outdated now.

As a public policy choice, execution requires trade-offs of public resources and investments for state legislators and local prosecutors. The costs of administering capital punishment are prohibitive. Even in states where prosecutors infrequently seek the death penalty, the price of obtaining convictions and executions ranges from $2.5 million to $5 million per case (in current dollars), compared to less than $1 million for each killer sentenced to life without parole. These costs create clear public policy choices. If the state is going to spend $5 million on law enforcement over the next few decades, what is the best use of that money? Is it to buy two or three executions or, for example, to fund additional police detectives, prosecutors, and judges to arrest and incarcerate criminals who escape punishment because of insufficient law-enforcement resources?

Florida, for example, spent between $25 million and $50 million more per year on capital cases than it would have to if all murderers received life without parole. The Indiana Legislative Services Agency estimated that had the state sentenced its death row populations to life without parole, Indiana taxpayers would have been spared approximately $37.1 million.

A more recent op-ed specifically looking at California.

When someone says the death penalty is more expensive than a life without parole, they seem wrong. However, they’re in fact telling the truth. The death penalty is millions of federal and state tax dollars more expensive than a life in prison without parole. In California it costs an estimated $308 million per execution. While this is a morally charged issue, at that price do we really care what crime the defendant committed?

In 2012, California voted on the abolishment of the death penalty. Since 1977, the current flawed system has cost the state about $4 billion dollars. With 725 people on death row, California warehouses almost 25 percent of the country’s total death row population. It costs about $47,000 to incarcerate a man for one year in California, but it costs $90,000 extra per year to house a man on death row. This puts the annual death row bill at $137,000 per person. The cost of one year in general population is derived from mainly security and health care, but also includes food, rehabilitation programs and facility costs. Additional death row costs include the officer, or officers, constantly escorting the inmates in and out of their prison cells. Each person awaiting a death sentence is placed in an individual cell, while those in general population typically share a cell. Individual supervision is also required for the two hours of physical recreation time inmates receive daily.

These are the only costs of incarceration. The court fees are where the bulk of the costs lie. The trial for death sentences takes three to five times longer, needs twice as many lawyers, has a far more difficult jury selection process and has a practically endless appeals process as opposed to life without parole cases. Of the 725 people on death row in California, only thirteen have exhausted the appeals process. The majority of individuals on death row are poor. Tax dollars are funding virtually the entire process. However, the answer is not to try and repair this practice because every time a state has attempted to mend it, the death penalty has become unconstitutional. Less than 2 percent of the criminals who commit the most shocking of crimes are sentenced to the death penalty. After the 2008 recession and more stringent economic policies with the federal deficit at the forefront of discussion, it’s time to look at this issue from a new angle.

And a rather more substantive article from the ABA. Don't want to crop a third lengthy quote from a non-line wrapped pdf, but the bottom line there is that choosing not to abolish the death penalty in Prop 34 is costing California in the region of $100 million a year.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm against it.  If you are a criminal, I think its important to have both punishment and rehabilitation (and maybe compensation?).  If you punish with death, you can't really rehabilitate.

This is sort of a non-issue for most death-penalty debates, though, because with or without it the target group is going to be people who were never up for rehabilition anyway. It's not a question of "Should we kill these people or let them go a long time from now?" it's a question of "Are we better off if these people die in prison sooner, or later?"

A true life sentence, where the person has been sentenced to die in prison is, in my opinion, no worse than execution, and it is something that every government practices.

[kaijyuu]

I'll just pop in to state that vengeance and retribution has no place in any justice system. Note that this is very distinct from "deterrent"; punishing someone to deter someone else from committing the same crime (or the same person from committing the same crime, ala what parents do to children) can be effective.

Remember the ultimate goal is prevention of crimes. If the end is anything else, then we've got problems.

[Criptfeind]

I think there are a lot of people that should die. But I don't really the benefit to killing them is actually worth the costs. I'd rather keep a infinite amount of people who I think should die in jail for the rest of their natural life then kill one innocent person.

And since the going rate appears to be 1:20, which is way less then 1:all.

Yeah.

I'll just pop in to state that vengeance and retribution has no place in any justice system. Note that this is very distinct from "deterrent"; punishing someone to deter someone else from committing the same crime (or the same person from committing the same crime, ala what parents do to children) can be effective.

Remember the ultimate goal is prevention of crimes. If the end is anything else, then we've got problems.

I thought the goal was to spend money?

[Levi]

Well, you guys could START trying to rehabilitating people.    

Hell, if its a choice between killing the criminal and not killing the criminal, why not give them the option to work instead?  Could put them to work building hospitals or fixing up roads or something.

[palsch]

A true life sentence, where the person has been sentenced to die in prison is, in my opinion, no worse than execution, and it is something that every government practices.

Well, under the ECHR life without parole is not allowed. There must always be the option of parole down the line. Perpetual sentences are still possible and available everywhere (even nations with theoretical maximum sentences), but the possibility of rehabilitation can never be completely ignored.

The practical implementation/recognition of this across the EU is problematic, but it is the legal status.

[noodle0117]

Easily more expensive to execute people in the US.

O.o

And to think in DF you just need to set up two mechanisms and have someone pull a lever.

[GlyphGryph]

I'll just pop in to state that vengeance and retribution has no place in any justice system. Note that this is very distinct from "deterrent"; punishing someone to deter someone else from committing the same crime (or the same person from committing the same crime, ala what parents do to children) can be effective. Remember the ultimate goal is prevention of crimes. If the end is anything else, then we've got problems.

Of course, even ruling out vengeance and retribution and deterrence, it's still possible to argue for the death penalty.

Well, you guys could START trying to rehabilitating people.    
Hell, if its a choice between killing the criminal and not killing the criminal, why not give them the option to work instead?  Could put them to work building hospitals or fixing up roads or something.

Again, this is the state of things in the vast majority of countries in practice, with the notable exception of Spain and a number of its former colonies. The alternative for those who would be sentenced to death is to instead be sentenced to death in jail (but we won't be the ones that kill you, we'll wait for it to happen) (again, in practice).