Chinese death vans
 

if this was posted before sorry but i couldnt find it in a search any ways.. link

http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/May2003/China

The use of lethal injection as a method of execution is becoming increasingly popular among provincial authorities in China. In January 2003 a journalist and a group of "several dozen" court officers from all prefectures, cities and counties in Gansu province were taken by officials of the provincial high court to an unnamed detention centre near Lanzhou to attend a lecture and then witness the execution by lethal injection of 11 convicted prisoners. This was reportedly the largest group of prisoners to be executed by lethal injection on one single occasion since the method was introduced in Lanzhou.

Execution by lethal injection as an alternative to the firing squad was introduced in China in the revised Criminal Procedure Law in 1997 and was first used on an experimental basis in Yunnan province. The current "strike hard" anti-crime campaign, launched in 2001, under which defendants are often sentenced to death for crimes which at other times are punishable by imprisonment, has led to a rise in executions. During 2001 and 2002 AI recorded more than 5,900 death sentences and more than 3,500 executions in China, although the true figures were believed to be much higher.

In an effort to improve cost-efficiency, Chinese provincial authorities are beginning to introduce so-called mobile execution vans. These are intended to replace the traditional method of execution by firing squad in which prisoners are taken to an execution ground and made to kneel with hands cuffed before being shot in the head. Officials in Yunnan province explained that only four people are required to carry out the execution in the mobile vans: the executioner, one member of the court, one official from the procuratorate and one forensic doctor.

Eighteen mobile executions vans, converted 24-seater buses, are being distributed to all intermediate courts and one high court in Yunnan province. The windowless execution chamber at the back contains a metal bed on which the prisoner is strapped down. Once the needle is attached by the doctor, an act which breaches international medical ethics, a police officer presses a button and an automatic syringe inserts the lethal drug into the prisoner's vein. The execution can be watched on a video monitor next to the driver’s seat and can be recorded if required.

The newspaper Beijing Today reported that use of the vans was approved by the legal authorities in Yunnan province on 6 March. Later that same day, two farmers, Liu Huafu, aged 21, and Zhou Chaojie, aged 25, who had been convicted of drug trafficking, were executed by lethal injection in a mobile execution van. Zhao Shijie, president of the Yunnan Provincial High Court, was quoted as praising the new system: "The use of lethal injection shows that China’s death penalty system is becoming more civilized and humane." However, members of China's legal community have voiced their concerns that it will only lead to an increase in the use of the death penalty.


wow and here i thought 3rd world organ harvesting was bad.. whats next.. death from jaywalking?

It's kind of sad that a we treat them so well when they do this kind of shit in blatant violation of human rights. If I was president, I'd yank their MFN status out from under their feet so fast they'd flip over three times before landing on their backward asses.

:hmm:
that is some crazy shit.

What a way to save money...put all government agencies in the back of vans. But, having a van like that is a scrary thought when those officials could pick up anyone off the street and execute them. I mean, if these things got into the wrong hands... I think the Chinese should explore other avenues of reducing crime besides killing as many criminals as possible.

well, I agree that another method should be found, but then again it'd be quite hard to find enough prison space for a country with over 1 billion citizens. Even if only 1% of the population was ever convicted of a crime your talking about over 10 million prisoners to house in a country that is not known for it's wealth. Killing the "hardened" criminals is pretty much the only option they have.

Forgive my frankness, but that's complete and utter bullshit.

Killing is the only option they have? Due to their high population?!!

What's next? You support mandatory abortions due to their one child per family policy?


The death penalty is wrong. Always. No matter what. Period.


Mr Mephisto

After the People's Republic of China, the United States executes more people every year than any other country. There are currently about 3,500 prisoners on "Death Row" in the US.

The US is also the only country in the world, apart from Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, that executes children. Over 70 prisoners remain on death row in the USA for crimes committed when they were 16 or 17 years old.

I agree that China has a lot to answer for. But the US is far from innocent in its policies with regards to the death penalty itself.


Mr Mephisto

I would hardly consider a 16 or 17 year old a "child". They are old enough that they are capable of making their own decisions and facing the consequences.

And no my idea is not complete and utter bullshit. This is a poor country with a huge population. Keeping prisoners is very expensive, why should they waste resources taking care of criminals(I mean people who commit murder, rape, and various other severe crimes, not every common theif or political prisoner)? And yes in their case I would consider mandatory abortions after a second(i'm pretty sure they can have two kids) child to be better than the alternative, which is having the population outgrow the local food supply and have the kids die slowly from starvation and malnutrition. Just because we produce enough food to feed twice the world's population does not mean it's getting distributed all over the world. Although that problem is going to sort istself out sooner or later, the culture values male children for inheritence purposes and therefore most couples get an abortion if the child is not male, due to the limit on children allowed per person, which will lead to a great imbalance between men and women over there, so they will actually be incapable of having as many children. It sucks, but that's life.

If it were up to me, the average 16-17 year old wouldn't be behind the wheel of a car and they certainly would not have to a pay off their debt to society with their lives for mistakes they've made at that time.

You might not be the one pulling the plug (or pushing down the plunger) but an "It sucks, but that's life" opinon is an extremely dangerous perspective to have.

Surely our cultures are different but any society that views killing people on a mass scale as an admissiable act if it's done for the greater good of society is flawed - the death penalty is tell-tale proof of a society that has yet to understand the value of life. The only thing more disgusting than these vans of death is how their govt's disregard of the most basic of inherent human rights will leave a lasting influence on those people.

One look at the US' crime rates is more than proof enough that this "punish over rehabilitation" form of justice doesn't work and only adds fuel to the fire.

Man thats pretty sick IMO.

I am all for the Death Penalty is certain cases of rape and murder but this turns it into an everyday, run-of-the-mill thing.

nder which defendants are often sentenced to death for crimes which at other times are punishable by imprisonment, has led to a rise in executions.

it didnt say there were "hardened" criminals.. it could be something simple as car theft to.. dare i say shopliffting to feed their family.. gotta remember thier laws are different from ours.

I have made no attempt to defend unethical US death penalty laws. I merely stated that, if in charge of things, I would not be doing business with a country that does this. I think it goes without saying that I'd be working against the death penalty in the US as well.

As much of a liberal thinker I am, I do believe that the government does have the right to execute its populous (punishment must fit the crime). These would include (but not limited to) - murder, serial-rape, repeated violent acts.

Now a lot would argue that the gov't should not execute it the body of people to which they are looking over. A lot of these people believe that these criminals can become somewhat productive members of society through hard time and counseling. But let us look at the cold hard facts people. Population is rising. Crime is rising. A good portion of these crimes is a result of the judicial system failing us , which it has done numerous times.

Well, what you consider is not really relevant. Those under 18 are considered children, or if you prefer "juveniles". That's the legal definition.

I'm glad you're not running things. :-)

Because the death penalty is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I appreciate you don't share my opinion, but I firmly believe taking human life is not justified.

Again, despite my attempts to see your point of view, this is utter nonesense. Chinese families with more than one (or even two) children are not slowly dying of starvation. I am at a complete and utter loss that you would even consider mandatory abortions. There's nothing really I can say to that...

Very well and good, but that's got nothing to do with industrialized state sponsored murder, which is what these so-called "Death Vans" are...

Mr Mephisto

So just to clarify, if a 16 or 17 year old "child" (which IMO that age shouldn't be considered a child anymore, by that age they are fully aware of right and wrong and consequences) was to kill someone or even worse kill a handful of people, you would suggest that they spend their life in prison? I haven't been to death row but I think it would be safe to say that people in there would rather go ahead and die than spend their life fighting, getting raped, getting stabbed and what not for another 80 years.

Let's also venture further and ask ourselves this. When is a person "rehabillitated"? Really. Someone goes out and rapes 30 women or somone kills 1 or more people. There is no guarantee that a person has changed. I've seen it countless times in society where the justice system gives them another chance and they do fine for a while then they crack. I think that capital punishment IS a necessary form of punishment for certain crimes and/or habitiual (sp?) violent criminals.

This debate could also go further and say that the system doesn't give enough opportunities for prisoners once they reach the "outside" I will agree to this to some regard but it is a natural instinct to be careful of people who were involved in a violent crime.

The Death Penalty is one of the few issues on which I have done a complete reversal of viewpoint. Time was, I was a staunch advocate of Capital Punishment. Now...I cannot condemn the practice loudly enough.

However...while I agree that forfeiture of Most Favored Nation status is certainly in order, I beleive that to completely abolish all trade relations with China would devastate our own economy. When China was holding one of our U.S. Navy EP-3E Aries II aircraft, after it collided with a Chinese fighter jet over the South China Sea, I attempted a personal "boycott" of all goods that were of Chinese manufacture. Try to buy so much as a pair of shoes. It was only at this time that I realized the extent to which the goods that we consume are made in China. While we are certainly capable of it, I do not feel that US industry is prepared, at this point, to assume the massive burden of production required to satiate our consumerism.

So at what age should they be considered juvenile (or "children")?

15?
14?
13?
12?

Who decides?

You?

By definition, when there is a distinction between adult and child, there must be a cut-off point. Western legal doctrine has dictated, for well over a hundred years, that this is at 18 years.

Feel free to disagree, but your opinion is unlikely to overturn hundreds of years of legal, social and cultural precendence.


Mr Mephisto

Ooops. I thought this was a thread about Asian drivers in general (Chinese death vans). Sorry.......

You're right it is unlikely to overtun years of legal social and cultural precedence but there are exceptions to every rule. In our system how many times is the question asked "will he be tried as an adult" how many times is that question asked without the public knowing about it? The majority of children begin learning right from wrong and consequences thereof from birth. And in my own *opinion* I believe that unless the person has a mental problem that it doesn't take 18 years for someone to understand what's right and what's wrong or that doing something violent to someone won't affect them in any way or that there's no consequences for their actions. (sorry about the run on sentence) Furthermore, I also believe that if you simply take a 16 or 17 year old and tell them "it's ok...just don't do it again" because they are a "child" in the eyes of law that you will continue to see an uprising of criminal behavior and violent acts. Seriously if someone knows they can do something and get away with it, what will stop them from doing it? It happens every day in society. I'm not saying that every person should be killed. I'm just saying that even if they are 16 or 17 that if that's the punishment that fits the crime.. then that is what needs to be done. I personally know a "kid" who is 17 years old. He was in a gang in Miami Florida. He shot and killed a kid point blank for no reason then shot 2 other kids who are now vegetables. I asked the guy why he did it when I went to visit him , he said he was angry and that the kids were talking shit about his gang. He was sorry about what happend but he was also very mature saying that he deserved to die because he took someone's life and it would only be fair. He is currently awaiting trial. It was sad to see..because yes he was young but the guy only knew violence his whole life. That is a different story though.

The lethal injection vans make execution a little too accessible. Prisoners on death row should have to been taken to a set area to be put to death. I'm not entirely certain lethal injection is the most humane method though. I think several gunshots at close range would be quicker, less horrifying, and probably cheaper, too.

I dont have a problem with this at all. They broke the law. They should know the consequences. If I knew I was going to be killed for jaywalking you can be damn sure that I wouldnt jaywalk. Now I realize that is an extreme, but you get my point. If the consequences for crimes are high you can be sure most people will not risk it.

If you can not function in society, then we will remove you.

-I realize most of you will not agree with me, but this is my opinion.

How many of these new vans are headed to Texas? This could affect the trade deficit.

[QUOTE=animosity]I dont have a problem with this at all. They broke the law. They should know the consequences. If I knew I was going to be killed for jaywalking you can be damn sure that I wouldnt jaywalk. Now I realize that is an extreme, but you get my point. If the consequences for crimes are high you can be sure most people will not risk it. [QUOTE]

that is a little extreme but i definitely get what you are trying to say. if you kill someone, expect to pay back with your life. now im not saying defending your life or your family, friends, etc.. but if you kill someone while committing a robbery, i truly believe you should punished by death. you have hurt so many people indirectly (coworkers, family, etc..) that there i dont see any other alternative. why should the taxpayers pay for your crime? now other crimes like jaywalking, petty theft, those should be punishable by restitution plus an increased fine. you pay for whatever you stole, except you dont keep the product plus 200% of the cost or so for getting caught. should make up for all the times you did not get caught... sounds fair to me! :thumbsup:

i agree with you. career criminals have no place in society. you can screw up one, two, three times with minor offenses. but if your minor offense list is 30 pages long, and contains a rape or murder...you are a threat to society...even in a prison where others are serving time for lesser offenses. there is no reason that a hippie busted for selling a few pounds of dope should have to serve time with a guy who has committed multiple murder or multiple rape. period. they (the hardened ones incapable of rehabilitation reassimilation) must be removed. barbaric? yes? inhumane? possibly. but absolutely necessary.

The only problem with this statement animosity is that you're wrong.

Extensive research and analysis has proven that the Death Penalty does NOT in fact act as a deterrant. It is simply an excercise in vengence. If that's what you want and believe in, then fine. Just admit it. Don't try to hide it in some psycho-babble nonesense about making the world safer, deterring criminals or preventing crime.

If you want references, including links to FBI and US Government studies, you can start at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...cid=12&did=167

Add to the fact that you would certainly end up executing innocent people and you can see why most modern, civilized Western societies are turning away from or repealing Death Penalty laws. Most "civilized" countries. Just not the United States.

That kind of sentiment was pretty prevalent in 1930's Germany too.


Mr Mephisto

But is the function of the death penalty to deter other people from committing similar crimes? Or is it to prevent that one person from committing similar crimes?

If it is the former, then it may not be working.

If it is the latter, then it works 100% of the time.

I think executions should NOT be done in a humane way, if you did something bad enough to deserve execution then you were obviously not being humane to someone else, so why the hell should your punishment be painless. And in my opionion single offense violent rapists should be executed also. That is just my opinion though.

And they are thinking of having the next Olympics there!

Oh my... *looks for his soapbox*

Why is it wrong? Always? No matter what? Period?

Because it's unmoral to kill? So we let the killers (and rapists and so on and so forth) live? Because we might, every once in a while kill an innocent person? I'm sure it's much better for them to rot in prison for decades until some new forensic science comes out to prove them innocent.

Personally, I hate the fact that we pay tax dollars to keep KNOWN guilty child molesters and rapists in prisons! WTF is that? I understand no "cruel or unusual punishment"... but death is not cruel, and it's not unusual. *shrug*

Well, I guess that you and I simply disagree on the death penalty at a fundamental level.

1) It's not a deterant
2) It costs more than life in prison
3) It kills innocent people
4) It's state sponsored murder
5) It's hypocritical
6) It goes against so-called Christian values

I can't change your opinion. If you think a guy murdering someone is wrong, why don't you think the state murdering them is wrong? I just don't get it.

If, however, you simply believe in vengence, well then fine. At least that would be an honest answer. I simply disagree. Prison yes. Death? No.

Mr Mephisto

This is true. Most murderers/rapist are beyond caring about the repercussions. This is why I say, remove them(with as little cost as possible)... If they do not care about laws then why bother keeping them around? I realize some people make mistakes, but these are not mistakes I find redeemable...

and my statement was not wrong... i said "If I knew I was going to be killed for jaywalking you can be damn sure that I wouldnt jaywalk." Are you telling me you would risk jaywalking if you knew you would be killed if caught?

but hey, I realize this is not a subject that is easily resolved. So you think your way, I'll think my way, and we will all be happy :)

"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"

Ummm, that isn't Christian doctrine, that's Hammurabi's code.

no?? here it is in Exodus 21

Personal Injuries
12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.
13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.
14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.
15 "Anyone who attacks [3] his father or his mother must be put to death.
16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.
17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
18 "If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist [4] and he does not die but is confined to bed,
19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [5] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye.
27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.
28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible.
29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.
30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded.
31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter.
32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels [6] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.
33 "If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it,
34 the owner of the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay its owner, and the dead animal will be his.
35 "If a man's bull injures the bull of another and it dies, they are to sell the live one and divide both the money and the dead animal equally.
36 However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay, animal for animal, and the dead animal will be his

Christian Values

Old King James Version

You make me choke on my food... :lol:

Ok, sorry, I was wrong, but I do know that it was in Hammurabi's code, which was written a long time before the bible, I think around 1200 B.C.

The question that i would like answered, is , what crimes that formerly were not death penalty offences are now death offences- seems that that is a big factor in how humane the sysem in china is now- anybody got any data on what crimes they kill you for over there?

Ref: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_364029.htm

I also recommend this report: http://www.iuscrim.mpg.de/info/aktue...e/deathprc.pdf


Mr Mephisto

"Thou shalt not kill"

Now, let me think. What is more important in Christian doctrine? The Ten Commandments, the 'forgiving' nature of Christianity, treating your neighbour as you would haev them treat you?

"Let he without sin cast the first stone"


In other words, you can find justification for almost anything in the bible. But 99% of people agree that Christianity is not more associated with "an eye for an eye" (in fact, that's an argument that is often used against Islam!), but more with "thou shall not kill"

So, I repeat. It goes against so-called Christian doctrine.

As an atheist, I really couldn't give a shit if it does or not. I just thinki it's morally wrong.



Mr Mephisto

I do think the Chinese have taken this to the extreme, I've also heard and read stories of harvesting organs from prisoners for transplants. Hey... waste not, want not (ok, that was bad)

I personally believe the death penalty is a necessary evil. There are persons who commit violent crimes and will never, for whatever reason or excuse they can come up with, be productive members of a safe and rational society. I'm talking in cases of pre-meditated or serial murder, serial rape and the like. Tell me what good Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer would have ever been to society? They are a permanent menace and have no place among the living. Back to this thread, I don't think drug trafficking or use justifies a bullet in the head or one way trip in the death bus

'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.

$ 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

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

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

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.

thought experiment. purely hypothetical.

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.

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

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

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

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

Make of it as you will.


Mr Mephisto

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

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

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.........

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

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.

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

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.

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

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 :thumbsup:

-Lasereth

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.

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.

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

*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 :)

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