Death Penalty

[BuddyLee]

They're appealing the conviction that gets them locked up anyways so where is the cost savings?

Death penalty cases can be appealed almost endlessly it seems. It takes a long time to finally put someone to death, usually.

 

[BuddyLee]

They're appealing the conviction that gets them locked up anyways so where is the cost savings?

Also, as I said previously...

...find me evidence that proves me otherwise.:shrug:

 

[Queenofdenile1]

DEATH!!! Some POS who knocks off a poor, defenseless baby in the backseat of a van or some POS who beats up and kills defenseless old people NEED TO DIE IMMEDIATELY w/NO APPEAL. JUST DIE IN THE CRUELST MANNER POSSIBLE. IF COST IS A PROBLEM, I'LL DO IT FOR FREE and I WON'T MISS!!!

 

[Pushrod]

I'd give the death penalty to anyone who murders an innocent person or even if he or she shoots someone for no reason and the person lives, anyone who shoots someone while robbing them or even if he has a gun while robbing the victim, and certainly if he uses a gun while raping someone unknown to him. If he rapes someone known to him, I think that the case should be really scrutinized carefully .There are consequenses to our actions.This applies to cases where there is no question about guilt only! Also, as an adult who understands numbers and economics to a certain degree, as an intelligent person, it doesn't cost more to house, feed, educate and give all the comforts that some criminals receive than to execute them. Even BG&E would agree with me.

This befuddles me! So someone who uses a knife to commit these crimes, or a steel pipe should not get the same sentence? You are just as robbed, raped or dead no matter what tool is used in the crime! I think it should be the violent crime that dictates the sentence, not what is used to commit the crime.
I am NOT for giving breaks to someone who stabs someone to death with a knife over someone who shoots someone dead.
I say, commit a violent crime, you either get the death penalty or spend the rest of your life in prison, depending on the horrendousness of your crime!

 

[itsbob]

You can believe it all you want but you'd be wrong. Look it up, I was surprised too.

Appeals cases are very costly.

I've read that same paper. I haven't researched the numbers, but they look and feel realistic.

It's cheaper to sentence them to life, no appeals, no more court costs (most appeals costs are on the state, both for the defendant and the prosecution) and most appeals are automatic in a death sentence.

 

[itsbob]

This befuddles me! So someone who uses a knife to commit these crimes, or a steel pipe should not get the same sentence? You are just as robbed, raped or dead no matter what tool is used in the crime! I think it should be the violent crime that dictates the sentence, not what is used to commit the crime.
I am NOT for giving breaks to someone who stabs someone to death with a knife over someone who shoots someone dead.
I say, commit a violent crime, you either get the death penalty or spend the rest of your life in prison, depending on the horrendousness of your crime!

Lets take that one step further.. WHY should someone get a lesser sentence for ATTEMPTED murder than for murder. We award someone for failure?

If you shot someone in the head with the intent to kill them, and they survive, you should get the little prick the same as if the victim died.

 

[frequentflier]

Hang them all on the first Friday of every month in front of the court house.

 

[sux2b44]

just curious, discussion at work prompted my question.

I say its ok, and useful in cases where the person committed such a hideous crime that he/she will never get out of jail anyway. Why waste the money feeding them and providing 40 or 50 years of legal counsel.

Another person in here suggests that by killing a killer, we become no better than the killer.

Yes. I agree with you. Why not use the death penalty on murderers, child predators, and catheritization of repeated sex offenders.

 

[clevalley]

Yes. I agree with you. Why not use the death penalty on murderers, child predators, and catheritization of repeated sex offenders.

Why do we want to look into their heart or make them piss freely? Oh wait, you meant castration...

Oh yeah back to the OP's question; fry them until they glow.

 

[CalvertNewbie]

just curious, discussion at work prompted my question.

I say its ok, and useful in cases where the person committed such a hideous crime that he/she will never get out of jail anyway. Why waste the money feeding them and providing 40 or 50 years of legal counsel.

Another person in here suggests that by killing a killer, we become no better than the killer.

I agree with you. As it is, there are so many jails/prisons that are way too overcrowded. The expense of building & operating new prisons is so high because these idiots start young and spend 3/4 of their long lives there. Get them outta the jails - they don't deserve to live after committing violent crimes.

IMO, they should get one appeal only unless they want to pay for their own defense. It's ridiculous enough that we have to pay for any of their legal issues to begin with. Having the tax payers pay for appeal after appeal shouldn't be an option for these losers. Neither should cable tv but that's another topic. There are far too many rights for criminals and not enough for the victims.

 

[BuddyLee]

I agree with you. As it is, there are so many jails/prisons that are way too overcrowded. The expense of building & operating new prisons is so high because these idiots start young and spend 3/4 of their long lives there. Get them outta the jails - they don't deserve to live after committing violent crimes.

IMO, they should get one appeal only unless they want to pay for their own defense. It's ridiculous enough that we have to pay for any of their legal issues to begin with. Having the tax payers pay for appeal after appeal shouldn't be an option for these losers. Neither should cable tv but that's another topic. There are far too many rights for criminals and not enough for the victims.

Most of your prison population isn't on death row or aren't even violent criminals.

The problem with over-crowding in the American prison system has to due with problems within the American judicial system.

 

[bcp]

Most of your prison population isn't on death row or aren't even violent criminals.

The problem with over-crowding in the American prison system has to due with problems within the American judicial system.

I respect your opinion enough to have you educate me.
what are you thinking?

 

[BuddyLee]

I respect your opinion enough to have you educate me.
what are you thinking?

I'm for keeping the death penalty even though it costs more. I'm a government theorist. In other words, I look back at what some of the founding government thinkers would do...Locke, Hobbes, and the like. Succinctly put, everyone has indirectly signed a contract to be part of their society. If you break the rules of that society then you must pay. If the crime is vicious, the government has the right to seek payment. I don't really get into the "feelings" of the criminal. This is a breach of contract and they must pay the piper; nothing more nothing less for me.

As for the prison system, it needs a lot of work. I'm all for keeping violent criminals locked up for their due time. Most of the population, however, are non-violent criminals. I believe in reforming these individuals and not merely throwing them to the wolves and manipulation of the other, more violent criminals. There have been multiple successes in these reforming programs. This is not fail safe as almost nothing is but it will be much better than throwing Johnny Blow into prison for three years and having him commit the same or more serious crime when he is out. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that being in any environment will change the mindset and psyche of an individual. So, if we change the environment we change the person (sometimes). Less crime, less money being used in the prison system, more money in your pocket.

Of course, prisons are big money for local, state, and federal governments. Perhaps that's one reason why we're still building. Perhaps that's one reason why we have more prisoners than any other country per population percentage. I'd also like us to do away with mandatory minimum sentences. Most judges don't like them at all. A judge cannot judge anymore.

 

[BuddyLee]

Here's a decent article that makes a lot of sense to me.

San Diego County first for new prisoner reform program : North County Times - Californian

SAN DIEGO ---- Hoping to slash the number of freed prisoners who commit new crimes, county supervisors unanimously approved spending $1.66 million on an experimental plan that would go further than ever before to wean nonviolent prisoners off drugs and alcohol, teach them to read and give them job skills.

"We're the first county to be selected for this," Sheriff Bill Kolender said, adding that officials hope the program will eventually slash the 60 percent of prisoners who are freed in San Diego County only to commit new crimes.

"We hope so," Kolender said. "I mean, look, if they're a killer or a pervert, they aren't getting out. But if they're getting out, I think we have a legal and moral obligation to give them the opportunities to succeed. What can we do to help make them productive citizens ... and not have more victims? That's the whole thing in a nutshell."

Law enforcement and other officials said the 300 nonviolent felony prisoners released back into the California communities every day already have opportunities to take part in optional drug rehabilitation, vocational and educational programs.

But they said Tuesday that the new program, created out of a new law passed in 2005, would be a huge improvement. They said that was particularly because courts, prosecutors, defenders, prison, probation, and even community groups would work together, rather than separately, to offer rehabilitation help to prisoners.

Officials said in the current system, prisoners move from one law enforcement agency to another, and that agencies have no comprehensive plan to reform prisoners who could be rehabilitated.

While the new program would also be optional, it would include new, thorough evaluations of what prisoners need to reform and become productive citizens.

The program would follow up with a full-court press of county, state, community and religious groups working together to help prisoners ---- first in while they are in prison, and, once they're released on parole, with case management.

"These things aren't done (now)," Vaughn Jeffery, chief of administrative services for the San Diego County district attorney's office, said. "There is no comprehensive assessment. There is no treatment."

Officials said currently, nonviolent criminals are given assessments. But they take place in prisons, rather than upon conviction. The assessments focus on medical and academic testing. And they don't include testing for drug or alcohol abuse ---- despite the fact that a large percentage of prisoners have one or more addiction problems.

Studies conducted by the California Policy Research Center reported that 42 percent of the state's inmates had a "high need" for alcohol-abuse treatment, and 56 percent had a high need for drug treatment. At the same time, the studies reported that fewer than 9 percent got any treatment.

Jeffery said the result has been that only 21 percent of California's parolees ---- half the national average ---- successfully complete parole.

Law enforcement and prison statistics also reported that 95 percent of all state prisoners are eventually released back into their communities; and that 60 percent of San Diego County's freed prisoners end up committing additional crimes and back in prison within three years.

"These are people who do property crimes to support a habit," Jeffery said. "Not everybody will take (help). But a lot of people are tired of their old lifestyle and they want to get into the mainstream. They want in, and this is a way to get them in."

Supervisor Greg Cox said the program is part of Senate Bill 618, which was sponsored by Sen. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, and signed into law in 2005.

The new law noted that state prisons were "encouraged" to offer rehabilitation. But it also authorized counties ---- San Diego County alone for now ---- to create collaborative, multi-agency plans to work with the state's prisons to improve rehabilitation

Speier initially hoped the plan would be approved for all counties. But, as a compromise, the new law allows three counties to create plans that would be evaluated later to see how effective they are.

If they prove successful, the plans could become models to be spread to all counties statewide.

Jeffery said the county would submit its plan to the state quickly, and hopes to begin putting small numbers of prisoners through the program starting in October. He said the county plans to have all nonviolent prisoners moving through its program within three years.

Cox, meanwhile, said the new program would not mean shorter sentences, or more lax parole conditions for any prisoners.

"It certainly cannot be classified as being 'soft on criminals,' " Cox said. "This is a tough-love, pragmatic, serious way of making our communities safer from repeat nonviolent offenders.

"Something has to change," he said. "Repeat criminals often have lifelong addictions to drugs or alcohol. And most of them lack basic education skills, marketable skills, job-training skills. It's no wonder that so many of them end up back in our prisons in a very short period of time."

 

[CalvertNewbie]

I'm for keeping the death penalty even though it costs more. I'm a government theorist. In other words, I look back at what some of the founding government thinkers would do...Locke, Hobbes, and the like. Succinctly put, everyone has indirectly signed a contract to be part of their society. If you break the rules of that society then you must pay. If the crime is vicious, the government has the right to seek payment. I don't really get into the "feelings" of the criminal. This is a breach of contract and they must pay the piper; nothing more nothing less for me.

As for the prison system, it needs a lot of work. I'm all for keeping violent criminals locked up for their due time. Most of the population, however, are non-violent criminals. I believe in reforming these individuals and not merely throwing them to the wolves and manipulation of the other, more violent criminals. There have been multiple successes in these reforming programs. This is not fail safe as almost nothing is but it will be much better than throwing Johnny Blow into prison for three years and having him commit the same or more serious crime when he is out. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that being in any environment will change the mindset and psyche of an individual. So, if we change the environment we change the person (sometimes). Less crime, less money being used in the prison system, more money in your pocket.

Of course, prisons are big money for local, state, and federal governments. Perhaps that's one reason why we're still building. Perhaps that's one reason why we have more prisoners than any other country per population percentage. I'd also like us to do away with mandatory minimum sentences. Most judges don't like them at all. A judge cannot judge anymore.

I agree with most of what you said but those criminals that are in there for life (or a long stay on death row) are wasting space. I completely agree with you that the judicial system is in serious need of reform. Take California for example. Their three strike rule is overcrowding all of their prisons. Many of those in there for life have been convicted of 3 nonviolent crimes (drugs, for example) and they're put away for life.

Do I think any criminal should pay for their crimes? Absolutely, but I agree with you in that many sentences do not fit the crime. There are criminals convicted of attempted manslaughter that serve less time than drug dealers. They're all crap and can rot as far as I'm concerned but sentencing guidelines are all out of wack imo.

I'm for the death penalty in certain instances, regardless of the cost - murderers, attempted murderers and rapists (with overwhelming evidence, and I'm not talking about the high school boy who sleeps with his younger girlfriend). There are many people rotting in prisons who do not deserve to live. For everyone else in there, I'm with you. They need to try to "reform" these people, not just punish them. After all, they'll be out on the streets again pulling the same crap that got them locked up in the first place, and many of them are repeat offenders.