bigoldalphamale

'2) It costs more than life in prison'

please substantiate this claim...everything i have read is overwhelmingly to the contrary.

'3) It kills innocent people'

that seems to me to be more problematic of our legal system.

'5) It's hypocritical'

not in the least. the state makes it quite clear that if you kill another person, you could face death yourself. murderers and rapists give thier victims no such warning. two totally different ballgames here.

i understand your passionate yearning for the preservation of life...i think that passion might lose some of its edge if your 14 year old daughter was kidnapped, dragged into the woods and help captive for days while the offender raped and tortured her and finally dismembered her and had sex with pieces of her cold dead corpse. if you hold true to your passion after something like that...you're a better man than me.

Mephisto2

$ Tennessee Study Finds Death penalty Costly, Ineffective

A new report released by the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury recommended changes to the stateÕs costly death penalty and called into question its effectiveness in preventing crime. The Office of Research noted that it lacked sufficient data to accurately account for the total cost of capital trials, stating that because cost and time records were not maintained, the Office of Research was unable to determine the total, comprehensive cost of the death penalty in Tennessee." Although noting that, "no reliable data exists concerning the cost of prosecution or defense of first-degree murder cases in Tennessee," the report concluded that capital murder trials are longer and more expensive at every step compared to other murder trials. In fact, the available data indicated that in capital trials, taxpayers pay half again as much as murder cases in which prosecutors seek prison terms rather than the death penalty. Findings in the report include the following:

Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
Tennessee District Attorneys General are not consistent in their pursuit of the death penalty.
Surveys and interviews of district attorneys indicate that some prosecutors "use the death penalty as a 'bargaining chip' to secure plea bargains for lesser sentences."
Previous research provides no clear indication whether the death penalty acts as a method of crime prevention.
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed 29 percent of capital cases on direct appeal.
Although any traumatic trial may cause stress and pain for jurors, the victims' family, and the defendant's family, the pressure may be at its peak during death penalty trials.

(July 2004)
Read the The Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research's Report, "Tennessee's Death Penalty: Costs and Consequences."


$ Kansas Study Concludes Death Penalty is Costly Policy
In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases. The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The costs of appeals were 29% of the total expense, and the incarceration and execution costs accounted for the remaining 22%. In comparison to non-death penalty cases, the following findings were revealed:

The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.
The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).
The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.
The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.
Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.
(Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections) Read DPIC's Summary of the Kansas Cost Report.


$ Death penalty trials very costly relative to county budgets
Capital cases burden county budgets with large unexpected costs, according to a report released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, "The Budgetary Repercussions of Capital Convictions," by Katherine Baicker. Counties manage these high costs by decreasing funding for highways and police and by increasing taxes. The report estimates that between 1982-1997 the extra cost of capital trials was $1.6 billion. (NBER Working Paper No. w8382, Issued in July 2001) Read the abstract.



$ Total cost of Indiana's death penalty is 38% greater than the total cost of life without parole sentences
A study by Indiana's Criminal Law Study Commission found this to be true, assuming that 20% of death sentences are overturned and resentenced to life. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002)



$ North Carolina spends more per execution than on a non-death penalty murder case
The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993). On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion spent since 1976 on the death penalty. The study,"The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina" is available on line at www-pps.aas.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/comnc.pdf.



$ Florida spends millions extra per year on death penalty
Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post. Based on the 44 executions Florida has carried out since 1976, that amounts to an approximate cost of $24 million for each execution. This finding takes into account the relatively few inmates who are actually executed, as well as the time and effort expended on capital defendants who are tried but convicted of a lesser murder charge, and those whose deathe sentences are overturned on appeal. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000)



$ California spends millions more on capital cases
California spends $90 Million dollars annually above and beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system on capital cases. $78 million of that total is incurred at the trial level (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988). In January 2003, despite a budge deficit, California Governor Gray Davis proposed building a new $220 million state of the art death row. (New York Times, January 14, 2003)



$ Florida spent average of $3.2 million per execution from 1973 to 1988
During that time period, Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty to achieve 18 executions. (Miami Herald, July 10, 1988)



$ Texas death penalty cases cost more than non-capital cases
That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)


=========================================

That should be enough references for you. :-)

You can check the links to the original documents referred to at the following URL:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...did=108&scid=7



Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

By that standard, you would be happy to execute a high number of TFP board members?

Erm...

I'm happy that I don't live near you.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

I missed this bit earlier.

Is this a real example of a past crime, or a hypothetical 'thought experiment'? I'd like to think I'd keep my moral stance. I guess it goes to the way you're brought up. In the US, the Death Penalty is considered appropriate. In Ireland, even though I remember when it was still on the Statute Books, it was not.

People tend to keep the moral framework into which they were born as they grow older.

I just don't believe in it. I don't think it does anything but satisfy the lust for vengence. It certainly does not deter violent crime. Or, if we take China as an example, it does not deter prostitution, tomb robberty, corruption, car or cattle stealing etc.

Mr Mephisto

bigoldalphamale

thanks. off topic, but it just amazes me how easily parties to a cause are able to massage statistics and raw data to produce information that is to be passed off as fact in support of thier cause. trusted sources are tough to find these days.

bigoldalphamale

thought experiment. purely hypothetical.

animosity

I dont believe everything I read any more than I believe everything I hear. There is no way that those figures could possibly be actuarate. And even if they are, lets not let people get off on that fact. Just change the way you execute people......

Seems to me like a bullet in the head plus paying someone, lets be generous and say, $1000 to clean up the mess & dig a hole to throw the body in is a lot cheaper than paying to take care of someone for life...

or... just bury them alive? save the bullet.

pedro padilla

you know, i really don´t like slipknot. but, yes, people = shit.

Lasereth

This isn't about whether or not people agree with the death sentence...it's about the fact that there are now vans that can drive to the criminal and give death as it's needed. In a society that uses the death penalty heavily, it works. It's cheaper and faster. This doesn't affect the criminals or the justice system in China. As mentioned in the article, the people who are killed by lethal injection would have been shot in the head if not given the injection. The vans catalyze the system and save money. What's wrong with that?

Now, before I get flamed (I know it's coming), I'll say that I don't agree with the death penalty *usually.* I'm simply saying that this argument isn't about the death penalty...it's about a society saving money by bringing a mobile death machine to the criminals instead of having to waste time and money shipping them to their doom. There's no difference except saved time and money. When you're gonna get killed anyway (no matter if it's justly, unjustly, moral, or immoral), the government might as well save money. That's all they're trying to do. People in this thread seem to think China is now driving around death engines killing people for stepping onto the road or stealing a fork from a restaurant. No...the article plainly says this will only be used for those that were going to be shot anyway.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

Glory's Sun

was this really a needed statement?? cuz unless you're from another planet you fit into the "people" category

Mephisto2

Many of the reports referenced in that post above, and the link, were US Government statistics.

Make of it as you will.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Well, I think that's a rather simplistic analysis of the topic. No offense meant! I mean, you can't really discuss the pros and cons, the moral justification of these vans, without considering the underlying premises and goals with which they are associated.

To do otherwise would reduce almost any discussion here to logical/philosophical sophistry. Yes, if you want to simply undergo a cost-benefit analysis, then your statement is correct. But I think we're also discussing whether the whole concept is justified.

Just my opinion. And I won't flame you! :-)


Mr Mephisto

pedro padilla

well, i really hope i didn´t offend you personally, but thanx for making the statement valid.

Fire

thanks for the articles- I belive in the death penalty, but only when you are certain you have the right guy and not for some of the things they call for it on- that and the fact that the chinese gov. in general scares me, much less their "justice" system. I should also state that I am for the death penalty for a very personal reason, that being that it does stop a murderer from EVER doing it again- my wife's mom was murdered, by a VERY bad person who will with luck be killed by the state of idaho in a few years at the most- my wife will sleep easier just knowing that he will then be forever unable to come and kill her, which he threatened to do numerous times- I respect the rights of those who adhere to christian morals to feel the way they do, but I do not- Revenge is a perfectly great thing to me, and forgiveness is to be given out when I feel it is earned- some people should die, some peoples lives have no value because of the things they have done- they are a waste of time and money, and are consuming resources that others need.........

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

irateplatypus

good ol' capital-punishmentville... proud home of the unstated premise.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

stingc

The American version may not be, but the Chinese version sure is. So is the Middle-Eastern version.

Again, the Chinese version is quite cheap.

Ok. At least the American version probably has this one done a little better than the other systems.

So is waging war. It kills quite a few innocent people too.

It's not hypocritical. It is very different to condemn innocent people than to condemn someone who has shown that they have no value to society (or a negative value actually).

So? Most of the world isn't christian, and those that are don't have a universal interpretation of how it should apply to real life.

I'm not sure why the vans have people so upset. If they really wanted to kill random people, it's not so hard. All police officers have guns... I would agree that China's laws are too strict, but that is a completely different issue than enforcing those laws.

Mephisto2

Well, it patently is not! Otherwise they would not be executing so many people.

Again, we had moved on to discussing the utility of the death penalty itself and specifically its use in the US.

But your point is taken. In China, it is cheaper. Perhaps that's one of its problems.


Erm... OK. Not sure if you're arguing with me or dissenting.

Very true. And a very good point. Does one take one's opposition to the death penalty that bit further and take a position of total pacifism? You made me think and probably highlight an interesting contradiction.

Another thread perhaps? :-)


Oh but it is hypocritical.

"You took a human life. Therefore we shall take a human life."

Hypocracy.

If you take the position "You took a human life. Therefore we shall exercise our desire for retribution upon you, by taking your life", then at least it would be more honest.

But you're still punishing someone for doing a particular act, by performing the same act yourself. If that's not hypocracy, what is?


Mr Mephisto

Well, nor am I but most Western cultures are based upon Judeo-Christian values. Heck, your President himself is a born again Christian. More apparent hypocracy.

Because they are so clinical. Because they are mass produced technical apparatus designed specifically for the termination of life. They therefore, either explicitly or implicitly, are associated with other industrialized methods of murder such as the gas chambers used by Nazi Germany and/or "production line" like execution.

It gives people the heebie-jeebies. Myself included.

No one mentioned anything about killing random people.


Mr Mephisto

irateplatypus

there is a large part of the rationale that pertains to punitive measures, but it is nowhere near as simple as "you did this, therefore you'll get the same". I know you immediately discount the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent, but many many many people do not. Whether this is a lack of education or a lack of definitive evidence is irrelevant, the debate continues and it nowhere as near a conclusion as you seem to assume.

Also, I'm completely baffled by your equating the original act of murder with the measure of capital punishment. How can you compare the two? The first is often an act of greed, of lust, of jealousy, or cold-blooded twisted perversion. The second is the result of a fair trial by peers, subject to public review, apportioned according to established standards and only prosecuted after a process of appeal has been exhausted.

While the result is the same (a person is killed), the methods and motivations are radically different. To equate the two is to ignore the realities of two very distinct actions.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Mephisto2

Well, the vast majority of studies agree with me. The death penalty does not act as a deterrant. I'm not making this up, but basing my opinion on reams of verified studies.

I don't assume anything. I stated an opinion, and repeatedly said that I accept others may not agree with me. The simple fact that there are many anti and pro death penalty organisations, web sites and supporters show that the debate is not near conclusion. Why do you think I "assume" otherwise?

My opposition to the death penalty is one based upon moral grounds. Nothing else.


They are both the taking of a human life. Logically, you can't get more fundamentally "black and white" as that.

Do they result from different actions and/or string of events? Yes.
Is the end result the same? Yes.
What is the end result? The unnatural termination of human life.

Quite simple.

The associating justification or actions are different, as I state in the first question above. But, once again, if one has a moral opposition to the premeditated taking of a human life, then no distinction should be made.

You may not have such a moral opposition. Whilst I disagree, the fact that you have such a different opinion is fine. The only "problem" I would have with it is if it is based on erroneous data (like the common misconception that the death penalty is a deterrant or cheaper than life in prison).

Quite. And I never stated otherwise.

Well, I disagree. The end result of a death sentence is, in some ways, more chilling, as it is a calculated end result of a long string of deliberate actions.

Listen, I oppose the death penalty. Many others don't. But as my opposition is based upon moral grounds, you are almost certainly not going to convince me otherwise. I don't really expect to convince you of my position either, but I do feel entitled to point out mistakes of assumption by some supporters and make moral judgements on industrialized "production line" death machines such as that being introduced in China.

No offense intended or taken.



Mr Mephisto

Lasereth

Like I said...the argument in this thread is about the death sentence in China in general, not the vans. They do have an incredibly strict death penalty...I suppose that's why the vans are getting more controversy than they need. I still don't think justice is being altered or the system is changed. A "Chinese Death Penalty is too harsh" thread would be better than the van thread for this one. You're right...this discussion is about the whole concept, not just the vans.

<==== tries to get the thread back on topic

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

pedro padilla

recently i posted smpthn that said people = shit. i wholeheartedly stand behind that statement. i find it surprising that it was interpreted literally one way or another. what people? why? y´mean like fertilizer? "open minds" are often much more closed to debate than you would like to believe. yeah i will rephrase, people = ignorance.
for the record, chinese society as a whole doesn´t make a whole lotta sense to me. different culture, different world. I´d love to hear some real take on this from someone behind the line of fire. unfortunately, seems that the folk allowing freedom of expression or access to information might be passengers on the interstate van to enlightenment.

stingc

China executes so many people because damn near everything carries the death penalty over there. Considering how minor many of the offenses are (in our eyes), and how large China's population is, the numbers are actually very small. Think about the numbers of people who sell drugs (they include nicotine too I think) or make porn in western world. That's a lot more than a few thousand/year. I'm certainly not advocating following China's example though!

Well, my understanding of Judeo-Christian values is that it is ok to kill in self-defense or as punishment for extreme sins. At least the old testament is like that. In fact, it gets pretty brutal in parts. Then Jesus came along and said to forgive everybody. I've hardly ever met anybody who truly follows this though. People always make exceptions, and everyone's ideas on what's acceptable and what isn't differ quite a bit (as you're seeing in this thread).

By the way, I was agreeing with you that the death penalty sometimes kills innocent people. That is certainly the main issue involved in these arguments.

Mephisto2

There are 68 offences that are punishable by death. Not exactly "damn near everything", but certainly a lot more than most other countries.

When you oppose the death penalty on moral grounds, a single killing is too much.

China prescribes the death penalty for some 68 offences, including some 28 non-violent crimes such as; political crimes, bigamy, bribery, cigarette smuggling, corruption, disturbing the peace, drug-related crimes, economic crimes, financial fraud, forgery, grave-digging theft, pimping, publication of pornographic material, robbing of petrol, sale of counterfeit money, sale of false birth certificates and sterility certificates, sale of false invoices, sale of pelts of pandas, selling harmful foodstuffs, tax fraud, tax evasion, theft of antiques, theft of cows camels or horses, trafficking in national treasures, as well as internet hacking and cyber crimes. China metes out the death penalty to anyone convicted of trafficking 50 grams (1.764 ounces) or more of heroin.

REF: http://www.angelfire.com/stars/dorina/dpchina.html

Most certainly. The differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament are pretty profound really.


Mr Mephisto

bigoldalphamale

*steals thread*

mephisto = the same passionate propenent and preserver of life who supports wholesale elimination of an entire breed of dog in another thread?

your generous use of facts here to support your cause is appreciated. what i appreciate far less is your decision to avoid providing evidence for your 'pitbulls are only bred to be aggressive' statement in another thread. please adjust your other statement, or give it the full attention to factual claims that you claim to give here. others that post here may consider a campaign against an entire breed of dog more important than your campaign against capital punishment. thanks

Mephisto2

bigoldalphamale,

Please post such a request in the actual thread itself. :-)

And I categorically, positively, absolutely, verifiably did NOT say ANYTHING about or "support" the "wholesale elimination of an entire breed".

Check your facts.

I simply referred to the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 and it's ammendment of 1997. I said I "wholly support" the provisions of this act that call for the destruction of dangerous dogs (as defined in said Act), that attack humans. Again, check your facts.

And Pitbulls were originally bred to bait bulls. As in male cattle. By definition they are the "fearless fighting machines" of the canine world.

But let's leave subjects in their respective threads. :-)


Mr Mephisto