Executions in California cost $300 million each

[JoeTheJuggler]

A kidnapper should have to pay for taking someone's freedom away by having his freedom taken away. Wait, that is what actually happens. I guess that means society has stooped to the level of the kidnapper.

Not exactly since kidnapping is not equal to imprisonment. We should hold the kidnapper and demand ransom from his loved ones. Or the other way around--kidnap his loved ones and demand a ransom.

Anyway, I though the civilized world had already at least mostly abandoned "eye for an eye" justice since we came up with one or another version of the Golden Rule.

 

[lionking]

As I said in the OP, even assuming a fudge factor, the cost of executing someone in California is extremely high, and far more than imprisoning someone for life. The state is nearly bankrupt. Why not save money by locking people up and throwing away the key, like the majority of countries do?

 

[dtugg]

Not exactly since kidnapping is not equal to imprisonment. We should hold the kidnapper and demand ransom from his loved ones. Or the other way around--kidnap his loved ones and demand a ransom.

Anyway, I though the civilized world had already at least mostly abandoned "eye for an eye" justice since we came up with one or another version of the Golden Rule.

Only if it is a kidnapping for ransom. If I kept someone in my basement dungeon for years, and then the state kept me locked up in a prison cell for years as punishment, would that me that the state has stooped to my level and is no better than me?

 

[lionking]

Only if it is a kidnapping for ransom. If I kept someone in my basement dungeon for years, and then the state kept me locked up in a prison cell for years as punishment, would that me that the state has stooped to my level and is no better than me?

You do have the ability to stretch analogies to breaking point.

 

[dtugg]

As I said in the OP, even assuming a fudge factor, the cost of executing someone in California is extremely high, and far more than imprisoning someone for life. The state is nearly bankrupt. Why not save money by locking people up and throwing away the key, like the majority of countries do?

This ignores the fact that the death penalty saves money on other cases. Lots of murderers will plead guilty to avoid the death penalty thus avoiding the trial. What total effect does that have? I dunno. But it is something that you need to answer if you want to say that the death penalty is overall too expensive.

 

[dtugg]

You do have the ability to stretch analogies to breaking point.

Tell me the flaw.

 

[lionking]

This ignores the fact that the death penalty saves money on other cases. Lots of murderers will plead guilty to avoid the death penalty thus avoiding the trial. What total effect does that have? I dunno. But it is something that you need to answer if you want to say that the death penalty is overall too expensive.

Which proves it's cheaper to lock someone up than executing them. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[dtugg]

Which proves it's cheaper to lock someone up than executing them. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Do you have reading comprehension problems or are you just dishonest? Because clearly that is not what I said. I'll try to make is simpler for you in case it is the former:

1) A murderer pleads guilty to avoid the death penalty: less expensive than (2) because there is no trial and he cannot file appeals.

2) A murderer pleads not guilty because he has nothing to lose as there is no death penalty: more expensive than (1) because there is a trial and he can file appeals.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Only if it is a kidnapping for ransom. If I kept someone in my basement dungeon for years, and then the state kept me locked up in a prison cell for years as punishment, would that me[an] that the state has stooped to my level and is no better than me?

No, because the state isn't locking people up in a basement for whatever reasons/motives you would have been.

Just because you can try to cast a crime as being similar to the punishment isn't at all the same thing as saying we should make the punishment equivalent to the crime.

 

[dtugg]

No, because the state isn't locking people up in a basement for whatever reasons/motives you would have been.

Then you would agree that capital punishment doesn't mean that the state is no better than the murderer?

 

[fess]

I have contacted my state DOJ and informed them that I am flat broke. I can't make my car payment or the bank loan on my house; therefore, I am going to commit a robbery. However, I understand that it costs @40K a year to keep me in jail, not counting the money to convict me of the crime. So, if you send me 20K per year, I won't commit a robbery... ever. Look how much money we can save the taxpayer.

 

[WildCat]

But again, the total cost of the appeals process for death row inmates isn't composed solely of one lawyer's fees. I don't find the figure to be incredible.

I wasn't saying there was just one lawyer, I was illlustrating how many man-hours at what rate is required to rack up $12 million in legal fees.

 

[BenBurch]

I wasn't saying there was just one lawyer, I was illlustrating how many man-hours at what rate is required to rack up $12 million in legal fees.

Lawyers do things like charge $1 for each photocopy they need to make...

 

[Biscuit]

This ignores the fact that the death penalty saves money on other cases. Lots of murderers will plead guilty to avoid the death penalty thus avoiding the trial. What total effect does that have? I dunno. But it is something that you need to answer if you want to say that the death penalty is overall too expensive.

This argument means that people are being threatened with death and losing their right to a fair trial by pleading guilty out of fear regardless of their actual guilt or level of guilt.

 

[Muldur]

The UK has no death penalty.

It also releases sociopaths, gives them new identities and puts them in unsuspecting communities where they commit new crimes, as happened with one of the monsters who killed little Jamie Bulger. Jon Venables (or whatever new name they gave him now) was recently re-arrested for participating in child pornography.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/jon-venables-alleged-child-porn-offences

This guy I think more than sums up my opinion of THAT:

http://www.economicvoice.com/jamie-bulgers-killer-back-behind-bars/5007456

Furthermore, BOTH of the monsters have violated their paroles prior to that in 2005.

In October, 2005, Jamie's mother and killers were once again in the headlines as Denise Fergus publicly objected to reports that both of her son's killers may have broken the terms of their release. In June, 2005, a national (UK) newspaper reported that Jon Venables had been treated in a Merseyside hospital for injuries stemming from assault. A term of his probation is that he is not permitted to enter the county of Merseyside without official permission or an escort. A September article in the same paper reported that Robert Thompson, now 24, had been prescribed methadone, presumably to treat a heroine addiction. Use of an illegal (or Class A drug) is illegal and, thus, a violation of his probation. Fergus is publicly calling for an investigation of what she feels is a blatant mishandling of the killers' probation.

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/bulger.html

 

[Muldur]

If we can't use the bullet-costs argument, I'd just like to say that capital punishment is essentially state-approved murder.

mur·der (mûrdr)

NOUN:

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

VERB:
mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
VERB:
tr.

To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/murder

Execution of a lawfully convicted person by definition is not murder. The state, when acting in it's legal authority through the police and courts, cannot murder. Neither can a soldier shooting an enemy combatant. Nor can a private citizen exercising their rights to self-defense.

In all of the above cases, there is legal and moral justification for the taking of life.

Your simplistic killing = murder notion is farcical on it's face.

 

[thaiboxerken]

As an opponent of the death penalty, I think the monetary cost argument is silly. The reason it costs so much to execute a convicted person is because of those of us that are trying our hardest to make it nigh-impossible to execute someone.

It's like a Republican complaining about how horrible Medicare is, while ignoring the fact that they're the ones that broke the plan.

 

[lionking]

It also releases sociopaths, gives them new identities and puts them in unsuspecting communities where they commit new crimes, as happened with one of the monsters who killed little Jamie Bulger. Jon Venables (or whatever new name they gave him now) was recently re-arrested for participating in child pornography.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/jon-venables-alleged-child-porn-offences

This guy I think more than sums up my opinion of THAT:

http://www.economicvoice.com/jamie-bulgers-killer-back-behind-bars/5007456

Furthermore, BOTH of the monsters have violated their paroles prior to that in
2005.

Am I misunderstanding you? Are you suggesting that the killers of Jamie Bulger should have been executed? Because if you aren't this post makes no sense.

 

[Alt+F4]

Am I misunderstanding you? Are you suggesting that the killers of Jamie Bulger should have been executed? Because if you aren't this post makes no sense.

I also too, thought he was advocating the execution of two 10-year old boys.

 

[Alt+F4]

The reason it costs so much to execute a convicted person is because of those of us that are trying our hardest to make it nigh-impossible to execute someone.

Not the case in California. A big part of the reason for such excessive delays is that many of the condemed can't get an experience appellate attorney to take their case. Why? The State of California doesn't pay enough.