Considering the Death Penalty

[studiot]

In DP debates It is often pointed out the the DP does not form an effective deterrent.

That is over a long period the statistics show that the murder rate remains the same with it or without it.

 

Here is a quote from a novel I have been reading about the hunt for a particularly unpleasant serial killer.

 

 

There was no room for S_____ L______ , not when good people had perished to allow him his place on earth.

 

Today we have learned that the French discontinued surveillance of the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre about six months ago.

 

There are good people in France, needing help medical or otherwise, that there was no money to help whilst at the same time expensive resources were being spent of surveillance and finally combating such monsters.

 

Let the discussion commence.

 

[MonDie]

An unknown percentage may be innocent. More life-years lost from DP than from witholding medical care. DP itself is expensive from legal proceedings.

[Greg H.]

Despite what the talking heads would like us to think, I don't think the death penalty deters much of anything. What it really seems to be is way to stop people that a particular society considers unsalvageable from being a drain on everyone else. In that regard it is effective, though as MonDie points out, and based on the results from non-profits like the freedom project, there are likely to be people on death row who shouldn't be incarcerated at all.

 

In combat those people would be called collateral damage. In a civilian setting, however, I think it's unacceptable.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Greg H.

[iNow]

Death penalty is not about prevention or reduction in crime, but instead retribution and revenge. The core question is about whether we want state sanctioned revenge and whether or not we can teach people that killing is wrong by killing them.

 

From a purely economic standpoint, death penalty is also stupid amounts of expensive.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/

According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council (downloads as a pdf), defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that doesn’t take into account the cost of court personnel. Even when a trial wasn’t necessary (because of a guilty plea), those cases where the death penalty was sought still cost about twice as much as those where death was not sought. Citing Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center, Fox News has reported that studies have “uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole.”

 

And let’s not forget about appeals: in Idaho, the State Appellate Public Defenders office spent about 44 times more time on a typical death penalty appeal than on a life sentence appeal (downloads as a pdf): almost 8,000 hours per capital defendant compared to about 180 hours per non-death penalty defendant. New York state projected that the death penalty costs the state $1.8 million per case just through trial and initial appeal.

 

It costs more to house death penalty prisoners, as well. In Kansas, housing prisoners on death row costs more than twice as much per year ($49,380) as for prisoners in the general population ($24,690). In California, incarceration costs for death penalty prisoners totaled more than $1 billion from 1978 to 2011 (total costs outside of incarceration were another $3 billion). By the numbers, the annual cost of the death penalty in the state of California is $137 million compared to the cost of lifetime incarceration of $11.5 million.

 

In a tough economy, those dollars add up quickly. And who pays for these costs? State and local governments typically bear the burden of paying to pursue death penalty cases and those costs are typically budgeted and paid for through tax dollars. State spending on corrections, including prisons, has nearly quadrupled over the past two decades: it is now the fastest-growing budget item after Medicaid (report downloads as a pdf).

[studiot]

All this economics assumes the 'case' goes to trial.

 

It hasn't in France.

 

It did in the case of Saddam.

 

What do you do with a pack of rabid dogs about to make a meal of your sister?

Edited January 12, 2015 by studiot

[StringJunky]

Death penalty is not about prevention or reduction in crime, but instead retribution and revenge.

Agree.

 

 

The core question is about whether we want state sanctioned revenge...

If the feeling amongst the majority population is towards lethal retribution and revenge, for particularly awful crimes, then the state is democratically obliged to act on their behalf ...this is the role of a democratically-elected government.

 

 

...and whether or not we can teach people that killing is wrong by killing them.

This is irrelevant; they've passed the point of deserving rehabilitation or forgiveness.

Edited January 12, 2015 by StringJunky

[iNow]

All this economics assumes the 'case' goes to trial. <snip> What do you do with a pack of rabid dogs about to make a meal of your sister?

In that case, you're no longer talking about the death penalty. Instead, you're talking about vigilantism and mob justice.

.

If the feeling amongst the majority population is towards lethal retribution and revenge, for particularly awful crimes, then the state is democratically obliged to act on their behalf ...this is the role of a democratically-elected government.

Unless a right to life is somehow guaranteed to all citizens through the underlying governing documents or constitution. Admittedly, this rather quickly gets into serious legal and ethical ambiguities.

 

This is irrelevant; they've passed the point of deserving rehabilitation or forgiveness.

And that's certainly a common opinion, but not necessarily relevant or even factual.

[MonDie]

 

 

and whether or not we can teach people that killing is wrong by killing them.

 

This is irrelevant; they've passed the point of deserving rehabilitation or forgiveness.

 

Is that what iNow meant? Dead people can't learn.

[Greg H.]

What do you do with a pack of rabid dogs about to make a meal of your sister?

 

1. Aim weapon.

2. Fire.

3. Repeat as necessary until they get the message.

 

Not that this has anything to do with the death penalty.

[studiot]

 

In that case, you're no longer talking about the death penalty. Instead, you're talking about vigilantism and mob justice.

 

 

You clearly didn't understand my original post.

I'm sorry if I didn't make it clearer.

 

I'm contrasting two different statements, ideas or whatever under one banner since they appear to me to be opposed, not in the least because they perhaps do not overlap in their coverage of all the conceivable circumstances of killing people.

[imatfaal]

two procedural points

 

1. Considering this in the context of the Charlie Hebdo killings is wrong - hard cases make bad law. If we as a society, state or polity are to seriously consider this it should be in the cold light of day not in the heat of the moment.

 

2. Any European Union state would have to weigh EU membership against re-introduction of the Death Penalty. I cannot see how an EU member could re-instate capital punishment without relinquishing their place in the EU. Some might favour this outcome - but it does mean there is a huge economic factor to be considered as well as the moral and ethical quandaries

I'm contrasting two different statements, ideas or whatever under one banner since they appear to me to be opposed, not in the least because they perhaps do not overlap in their coverage of all the conceivable circumstances of killing people.

 

I don't really see the two opposing statements that you are contrasting

[StringJunky]

 

Is that what iNow meant? Dead people can't learn.

I believe so.

[studiot]

 

I don't really see the two opposing statements that you are contrasting

 

 

That's why I apologised for not making myself clear.

 

A serial killer kills again and again and.... - by definition.

 

The character in the story expresses poetically the cost to humanity of allowing such a person(?) to carry out their to carry out their desires.

 

Someone other than the serial killer must die.

 

 

This sad fact is also true in reality.

 

 

That is one side.

 

The other is exemplified by the observation that murderers are not on average deterred by the (legal) death penalty.

 

Also that the post-war French are not noted for pussy-footing around when it comes to security.

Their response is noticeably more John Wayne/ Tom Clancey than US administrations themselves.

 

So which is better?

 

For the serial killer to die or for another serial victim to die?

[Phi for All]

So which is better?

 

For the serial killer to die or for another serial victim to die?

 

False dilemma. These aren't the only two solutions.

 

I think we have to agree that neither of these outcomes are truly preferable, and one only becomes grudgingly so when contrasted with the other. If we know the DP isn't effective, we shouldn't use it, period. We don't steal from thieves to show them how bad it is, we don't beat muggers unconscious.

 

I've been conflicted about the treatment of the more violent members of our society. It's easy to say they're incorrigible, and we should just get rid of them by the cheapest means possible. I think it would make the problem even worse if we did. If we executed the worst 5% of violent criminals, how long would it take the the next worst folks to realize they're now the worst?

[studiot]

 

would it take the the next worst folks to realize they're now the worst?

 

Which makes me glad I'm in the 95% -100% bracket.

 

[MigL]

Not a fan of the death penalty for various reasons, but some ideas presented so far beg for an argument...

 

The death penalty is not about prevention, but revenge?

 

Number of people killed by convicted murderers released from jail ? Too many !

( did not look it up as its not needed for the argument )

 

Number of people killed by convicted murderers who were given the death penalty ? ZERO !

[John Cuthber]

All this economics assumes the 'case' goes to trial.

 

It hasn't in France.

 

It did in the case of Saddam.

 

What do you do with a pack of rabid dogs about to make a meal of your sister?

Among other things I jail the bastard that infected the dogs with rabies.

This actually stops it happening again.

What would you have advocated?

 

Of course, if I have to kill the dogs to save her- so be it.

But that's not the same as the death penalty which is killing in cold blood for no decent reason.

 

So it seems to me that your post didn't have a lot to do with the issue.

Edited January 12, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

 

Which makes me glad I'm in the 95% -100% bracket.

 

 

Until it's just us top 5% left. And me and the other 96-100 percenters are starting to question you 95% folks.

[Delta1212]

 

Which makes me glad I'm in the 95% -100% bracket.

 

Not after the first round. That'll slip your bottom range to 94.7%. Edited January 12, 2015 by Delta1212

[studiot]

 

Not after the first round. That'll slip your bottom range to 94.7%.

 

 

I was told, when I got my bus pass, that I automatically made the top 1%

 

[zapatos]

If the death penalty is about retribution and revenge, then what is life in prison about? Or any prison term for that matter?

If running the risk of executing an innocent person is justification for banning the death penalty, then isn't running the risk of jailing an innocent person justification for banning jail terms?

 

It seems as if the same arguments I am hearing against the death penalty apply to other punishments as well.

[iNow]

If the death penalty is about retribution and revenge, then what is life in prison about? Or any prison term for that matter?

Good question, especially if our goal is to minimize criminal activity (since punishment doesn't tend to be effective in this regard... see also: recidivism rates). Do we want to rehabilitate people, or do we just want to take them off the streets and throw them into a PhD program of criminal activity?

[studiot]

 

Do we want to rehabilitate people, or do we just want to take them off the streets and throw them into a PhD program of criminal activity?

 

 

Most people want to have as little to do with them as physically possible, especially if they are killers.

[zapatos]

While I am very much opposed to the treatment of death row inmates that seems like years of torture, and I recognize that we do execute innocent people, I can never make up my mind as to whether or not I support the death penalty. On the one hand it seems so barbaric, but on the other hand I feel there are crimes for which the ultimate punishment is justified. I seem to sway one way or the other based on the latest horrific murder or the story of how some inmate lost his mind while on death row.

 

We sanction murder all the time of people much less deserving (war) but struggle with conscience when we get to see the person face to face.

[Delta1212]

If the death penalty is about retribution and revenge, then what is life in prison about? Or any prison term for that matter?

If running the risk of executing an innocent person is justification for banning the death penalty, then isn't running the risk of jailing an innocent person justification for banning jail terms?

 

It seems as if the same arguments I am hearing against the death penalty apply to other punishments as well.

I think the primary difference is that if you realize your mistake later, you can say "oops" and let the person out of jail, whereas the death penalty is a tad harder to reverse.