Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 8,409
- Location
- England
Do you have a link to evidence for this? I would have thought it would have cost less.
Death Penalty on the economy?
- Thread starter fendi
- Start date
Do you have a link to evidence for this? I would have thought it would have cost less.
Same here. It depends I guess... Say if an 18 year old was put on death row and he was killed in a timely fashion then yes it probably would cost less then if he was housed for the rest of his life. A 50 year old? I very much doubt it. I know this process involves appeals and I imagine other lengthy procedures which cost lots of money.
Load of BS really. If you're put on death row then you should be killed in a cheap and efficient manner, that's that.
look above, the cost of the court cases alone, is more expensive than prison.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 3,489
- Location
- At Home
Is that right.....
http://www.econ.ilstu.edu/uauje/PDF%27s/issue1996/Death_Penalty.pdf
"Opponents of the death penalty point out that capital cases usually cost more than life imprisonment due to the extra court costs, such as appeals and extra supervisions. Proponents counter this argument by stating that the severity and finality of death as punishment demands that the extra resources be expended.
Proponents of the death penalty, therefore, argue that the death penalty significantly reduces the cost of the judicial process and criminal investigation. Quite a few opponents of the death penalty concede that the economic argument may be in favor of the death penalty, especially in terms of plea bargaining.
In the US in particular, the accused is allowed to plead guilty so as to avoid the death penalty. This plea requires the accused to forfeit any appeal arguing innocence on material or procedural grounds. Furthermore, by waiving the threat of the death penalty, individuals can be encouraged to plead guilty, accomplices can be encouraged to testify against other defendants, and criminals can be encouraged to lead investigators to the bodies of victims."
http://www.econ.ilstu.edu/uauje/PDF%27s/issue1996/Death_Penalty.pdf
"Opponents of the death penalty point out that capital cases usually cost more than life imprisonment due to the extra court costs, such as appeals and extra supervisions. Proponents counter this argument by stating that the severity and finality of death as punishment demands that the extra resources be expended.
Proponents of the death penalty, therefore, argue that the death penalty significantly reduces the cost of the judicial process and criminal investigation. Quite a few opponents of the death penalty concede that the economic argument may be in favor of the death penalty, especially in terms of plea bargaining.
In the US in particular, the accused is allowed to plead guilty so as to avoid the death penalty. This plea requires the accused to forfeit any appeal arguing innocence on material or procedural grounds. Furthermore, by waiving the threat of the death penalty, individuals can be encouraged to plead guilty, accomplices can be encouraged to testify against other defendants, and criminals can be encouraged to lead investigators to the bodies of victims."
I think it's fine but would have to be reserved for child murderers and rapists like Huntley who is 100% guilty. This world would be better off without him, plus he wants to die. Forget appeals with this guy, I can think of a few cheap ways to kill him too.
So even the people for death penalty admit it costs more.
plea bargaining can be used just as well on an indfinate sentence.
They have assumed it is a good deterrent, I have never seen any figures tio show that it is,. Although I aknowledge it's very hard to measure.
Good point, but why can't the other prisoners just beat him to death? Would save us tax payers money.
oh and Humans Rights are for humans. Huntley is an animal and should be treated as such.
This might seem an odd and ridiculously naive question, but how come it is par for the course to have multiple appeals? Surely you get your verdict, appeal it, and if that appeal fails, the verdict is carried out as previously decided? Are multiple appeals proven to do anything other than generate excess legal fees and stall proceedings?
Huntley doesn't want to die, if he did he would have succeeded by now. Hell the last attempt he told the screws that he had taken an overdose..
No. Huntley is a human.
To describe him as an animal lessens the responsibility he has for his awful crimes and makes us forget just what us humans are capable of.
When an animal kills young its for a valid reason - removing competition for food, making sure their own offspring prosper etc. When people do it its never valid.
No. He is human.
I literally can't understand how any intelligent human being can be an advocate of the death penalty.
Every time this topic comes up, I always summise it with one statement:
The death penalty is both harsher on society and more leniant on the criminal.
And to avoid the "ZOMG!!!!! LIBERAL!!!!!" tripe that always gets fired at me, let me say this: I am a firm believer in a life sentence being exactly that. You get locked in a cell by yourself. You get basic nutrition and you get an hour's exercise each day. The only person you see is your guard and you stay there until the end of your natural life.
*n
I'm in two minds over the death penalty. I used to be strongly against it but have been slowly changing over the years to be for it in some cases. I think having children changed my opinions on a lot of things. It makes cases involving children a lot more personal to me and I imagine how I would feel in those situations. I would want the person dead.
It's a difficult subject. Something I think I'd want them to suffer more so leaving them in prison for the rest of their life would be better but they tend to segregate the worst offenders and so maybe they wouldn't suffer that much.
It's a difficult subject. Something I think I'd want them to suffer more so leaving them in prison for the rest of their life would be better but they tend to segregate the worst offenders and so maybe they wouldn't suffer that much.
Solitary confinement will send people mad so they wouldn't be in a normal prison for long. Afaik everyone needs some sort of human interaction to survive.
I think doing that for any length of time isn't allowed as it will harm the person's mind. I'm sure there are limits on that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 11,742
- Location
- Northern Ireland
Why does it cost so much?
Just line 50 offenders up against a wall and get a machine gun out. Job done.
Just line 50 offenders up against a wall and get a machine gun out. Job done.
and 13 of them latter turn out to be innocent. But oh well, they where "criminals" at the time so it's all, al right.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
A few points worth making,
As far as I know, reading from a balanced piece on the death penalty written recently, since the US reinstated the death penalty there has not been a single proven instance of an innocent person being executed. There are a couple of cases (literally 2 or 3) where there is some doubt but in 10 years they haven't proved any of the people in question innocent. So that argument isn't as strong as you might think.
Secondly, the death penalty has been vaguely shown to increase the tendency of people to commit multiple murder, because if you're going to die for killing one person, what harm in starting on the witnesses?? A simplified argument but there is some evidence to back it up....
As far as I know, reading from a balanced piece on the death penalty written recently, since the US reinstated the death penalty there has not been a single proven instance of an innocent person being executed. There are a couple of cases (literally 2 or 3) where there is some doubt but in 10 years they haven't proved any of the people in question innocent. So that argument isn't as strong as you might think.
Secondly, the death penalty has been vaguely shown to increase the tendency of people to commit multiple murder, because if you're going to die for killing one person, what harm in starting on the witnesses?? A simplified argument but there is some evidence to back it up....