Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 9:47:58 GMT -6
Maybe we should look at those states that have already abolished the DP. Have they gradually moved towards abolishing punishment entirely? (I mean it as a serious question. It would be interesting if we could show that punishments gradually got weaker and weaker in the states that abolished the DP.) There are 18 states plus Washington DC, that do not have the death penalty. All but Alaska have LWOP. Alaska has a 99 year sentence instead.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on May 15, 2018 10:37:09 GMT -6
There are 18 states plus Washington DC, that do not have the death penalty. All but Alaska have LWOP. Alaska has a 99 year sentence instead. I believe Michigan is the only state with mandatory LWOP for murder.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 15, 2018 10:54:14 GMT -6
I don't care if only ONE person feels closure. Now about the rest, explaining the blindingly obvious can be hard with closed minds like yours but I'll try again, because apparently asking you to critically think it through with basic sense didn't work. I gave you a few examples of why there is not 90 grand in additional incarceration costs for a dp inmate vs any other. So maybe you can explain where the 90 grand in additional "incarceration" costs come from. Then I suggested where that cost might come from and it wasn't incarceration costs. You want to save money then fix the appeals process, it's out of control. You don't scrap a program that has a glitch without first fixing the glitch then assess the program. There are a number of reasons the death penalty costs more. My mind is closed because I know the truth, I've researched it. You didn't offer a single example of how death row inmates cost no more than other sentences. You offered BS and nothing to support that BS. DP cases cost more because their trials cost more, take far longer, and need expertise that other murder trials do not. One of the reasons their trials cost (double) is because there are two phases (or trials). Then, there are the costs of appeals which cost more because (again) expert lawyers are involved, because we're talking about killing them. They're generally housed separately and individually, which most (even on Level 4 ~ not sure what they're called elsewhere, but 'worst of the worst' who aren't on death row) other murderers are not. I'm not about to fix a system I have no faith in, and do not support. You want it fixed to reduce costs, I think that'd be on you. Meanwhile, til you offer up evidence I'm wrong, I'll leave my numbers standing. Your initial premise was it cost 90 grand more a year to feed, clothe and house dp inmates. I've mentioned that food clothing ECT do not cost more. So again incarcerating dp inmates does not cost more than others. Think it out a little. Now if dp costs more it's not because of incarceration and you FINALLY hit upon why maybe. Court costs are not incarceration costs, endless appeals are not incarceration costs. So if you dont like 90 exta grand a year then we need to fix court and appeals problems. But stop saying it costs more to "house" dp inmates Why is this so hard for you? Maybe if went with the Gary Gilmore model you'd be happier
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 15, 2018 11:07:06 GMT -6
yeah you/they will. as soon as some 17-18 year old kid has spent 50-60 years in prison and has been a model prisoner and the chances of him at this point killing again is pretty much non existent. isn't that pretty much the argument for the charles manson follower recently discussed? if we do away with the DP then we might as well do away with LWOP and not fool ourselves. Charles Manson didn't get LWOP. It wasn't a sentencing option when he was convicted. I wasn't talking about Charles Manson but rather a follower and clearly said such. And the point wasn't LWOP or lwp but rather the discussion centered on a teenager spending 50 years in prison being long enough.. would You support this release if it was LWOP? Some would
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 12:05:32 GMT -6
There are 18 states plus Washington DC, that do not have the death penalty. All but Alaska have LWOP. Alaska has a 99 year sentence instead. I believe Michigan is the only state with mandatory LWOP for murder. You may well be right, Joe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 12:20:12 GMT -6
Your initial premise was it cost 90 grand more a year to feed, clothe and house dp inmates. I've mentioned that food clothing ECT do not cost more. So again incarcerating dp inmates does not cost more than others. Think it out a little. Now if dp costs more it's not because of incarceration and you FINALLY hit upon why maybe. Court costs are not incarceration costs, endless appeals are not incarceration costs. So if you dont like 90 exta grand a year then we need to fix court and appeals problems. But stop saying it costs more to "house" dp inmates Why is this so hard for you? Maybe if went with the Gary Gilmore model you'd be happier I believe that was in response to you saying that the costs were the same, and I was using your words back at you. I was being flippant. When factoring costs of the death penalty, one MUST factor in all the costs, including court costs and appeals, as well as housing them. Why is that so hard for you? My reasons for opposing DP have nothing to do with the monetary costs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 13:02:47 GMT -6
Charles Manson didn't get LWOP. It wasn't a sentencing option when he was convicted. I wasn't talking about Charles Manson but rather a follower and clearly said such. And the point wasn't LWOP or lwp but rather the discussion centered on a teenager spending 50 years in prison being long enough.. would You support this release if it was LWOP? Some would Re: Charles Manson. You're right ~ I misread. Yes, some would. Moot though, since that wasn't a sentencing option at the time. Don't LWOP sentences have to be overturned to be reduced, same as with DP?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 15, 2018 13:49:21 GMT -6
Your initial premise was it cost 90 grand more a year to feed, clothe and house dp inmates. I've mentioned that food clothing ECT do not cost more. So again incarcerating dp inmates does not cost more than others. Think it out a little. Now if dp costs more it's not because of incarceration and you FINALLY hit upon why maybe. Court costs are not incarceration costs, endless appeals are not incarceration costs. So if you dont like 90 exta grand a year then we need to fix court and appeals problems. But stop saying it costs more to "house" dp inmates Why is this so hard for you? Maybe if went with the Gary Gilmore model you'd be happier I believe that was in response to you saying that the costs were the same, and I was using your words back at you. I was being flippant. When factoring costs of the death penalty, one MUST factor in all the costs, including court costs and appeals, as well as housing them. Why is that so hard for you? My reasons for opposing DP have nothing to do with the monetary costs. Well then don't bring up costs.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 15, 2018 13:52:48 GMT -6
I wasn't talking about Charles Manson but rather a follower and clearly said such. And the point wasn't LWOP or lwp but rather the discussion centered on a teenager spending 50 years in prison being long enough.. would You support this release if it was LWOP? Some would Re: Charles Manson. You're right ~ I misread. Yes, some would. Moot though, since that wasn't a sentencing option at the time. Don't LWOP sentences have to be overturned to be reduced, same as with DP? I don't know. But if we do away with the dp then we might as well do away with lwop. Because the arguments WILL be the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 14:11:05 GMT -6
Well then don't bring up costs. I believe I was refuting what you said. Most pros seem to think it's cheaper to execute than house murderers. I disagree, for the reasons I stated. But, that's not why I oppose DP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 14:12:45 GMT -6
Re: Charles Manson. You're right ~ I misread. Yes, some would. Moot though, since that wasn't a sentencing option at the time. Don't LWOP sentences have to be overturned to be reduced, same as with DP? I don't know. But if we do away with the dp then we might as well do away with lwop. Because the arguments WILL be the same. And yet, all but one state that has done away with the death penalty, still have LWOP as a sentencing option.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 15, 2018 14:17:01 GMT -6
Your initial premise was it cost 90 grand more a year to feed, clothe and house dp inmates. I've mentioned that food clothing ECT do not cost more. So again incarcerating dp inmates does not cost more than others. For the record, I make no claims about how much it costs to incarcerate a death penalty inmate versus a regular genpop inmate. I haven't researched it. However, I would speculate that it costs more. I am not sure it costs 90 grand more, but there are significant costs I would anticipate. These are off the top of my head. I haven't had chance to research. First and foremost: Solitary confinement is expensive. The basic cost of housing the prisoner equals the total cost of running the prison block divided by the number of cells divided by the number of prisoners per cell. So if there are two prisoners per cell in genpop, the isolated death row prisoner costs 2x the normal. If there are three prisoners per cell in genpop, the death row inmate costs 3x the genpop prisoner. Second: Medical expenses. Being in solitary for years and decades can cause health problems. Physical health problems from lack of exercise, access to sunlight, etc. And mental health problems caused by isolation. And the state is antsy about getting the inmate the best medical and mental health care in order to make sure he is alive and mentally fit for execution. Third: Suicide watch. In one of the great ironies of the death penalty system, the state is anxious that the prisoners not kill themselves. But being under a sentence of death, in isolation, for decades, can lead to severe mental health problems, self-harming behaviors and attempts at suicide. Prisoners on suicide watch need more supervision, and additional supervision costs money. Fourth: Specialist training: I don't know this, but I expect guards on DR get special training because they (occasionally) have to perform special duties. Obviously on D-day, but there are probably special security protocols for family visits, lawyer visits, and trips to court. Moreover, they have to be equipped to deal with people in a poor mental state, with no ability to earn the usual incentives and privileges to keep them peaceful. Nor can they be punished for bad behavior by sending them to solitary. Specialist training costs money, and the state might pick up the tab. Fifth: Salaries. Again, I don't know this, but I would not be surprised if guards on DR are paid more in return for their special training and duties, and the additional difficulties associated with the job. Sixth: Sundry expenses, e.g. the fact that at most DRs, they keep the lights on 24/7 (for suicide watch). They may put TVs in each cell (to reduce the deleterious mental health effects of solitary) and so on.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 15, 2018 14:19:23 GMT -6
I don't know. But if we do away with the dp then we might as well do away with lwop. Because the arguments WILL be the same. And yet, all but one state that has done away with the death penalty, still have LWOP as a sentencing option. I can see your point. but nationwide it can be said that it's not the ultimate punishment. When it IS the ultimate punishment nationwide watch and see. I think the dp arguments will re-emerge.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 15, 2018 14:23:13 GMT -6
Well then don't bring up costs. I believe I was refuting what you said. Most pros seem to think it's cheaper to execute than house murderers. I disagree, for the reasons I stated. But, that's not why I oppose DP. Well I don't believe it needs to be more expensive. Bernard has brought up possible incarceration expenses possibly unique to DP below. I'm still a fan of the Gary Gilmore model.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 15, 2018 14:27:10 GMT -6
Your initial premise was it cost 90 grand more a year to feed, clothe and house dp inmates. I've mentioned that food clothing ECT do not cost more. So again incarcerating dp inmates does not cost more than others. For the record, I make no claims about how much it costs to incarcerate a death penalty inmate versus a regular genpop inmate. I haven't researched it. However, I would speculate that it costs more. I am not sure it costs 90 grand more, but there are significant costs I would anticipate. These are off the top of my head. I haven't had chance to research. First and foremost: Solitary confinement is expensive. The basic cost of housing the prisoner equals the total cost of running the prison block divided by the number of cells divided by the number of prisoners per cell. So if there are two prisoners per cell in genpop, the isolated death row prisoner costs 2x the normal. If there are three prisoners per cell in genpop, the death row inmate costs 3x the genpop prisoner. Second: Medical expenses. Being in solitary for years and decades can cause health problems. Physical health problems from lack of exercise, access to sunlight, etc. And mental health problems caused by isolation. And the state is antsy about getting the inmate the best medical and mental health care in order to make sure he is alive and mentally fit for execution. Third: Suicide watch. In one of the great ironies of the death penalty system, the state is anxious that the prisoners not kill themselves. But being under a sentence of death, in isolation, for decades, can lead to severe mental health problems, self-harming behaviors and attempts at suicide. Prisoners on suicide watch need more supervision, and additional supervision costs money. Fourth: Specialist training: I don't know this, but I expect guards on DR get special training because they (occasionally) have to perform special duties. Obviously on D-day, but there are probably special security protocols for family visits, lawyer visits, and trips to court. Moreover, they have to be equipped to deal with people in a poor mental state, with no ability to earn the usual incentives and privileges to keep them peaceful. Nor can they be punished for bad behavior by sending them to solitary. Specialist training costs money, and the state might pick up the tab. Fifth: Salaries. Again, I don't know this, but I would not be surprised if guards on DR are paid more in return for their special training and duties, and the additional difficulties associated with the job. Sixth: Sundry expenses, e.g. the fact that at most DRs, they keep the lights on 24/7 (for suicide watch). They may put TVs in each cell (to reduce the deleterious mental health effects of solitary) and so on. I too don't see 90 grand a year in any of that. 2 appeals within 2-3 years MAX then raise the gallows will aliviate most of these costs. How about we do THAT for 20-30 years THEN decide which model works best?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 15, 2018 15:06:40 GMT -6
For the record, I make no claims about how much it costs to incarcerate a death penalty inmate versus a regular genpop inmate. I haven't researched it. However, I would speculate that it costs more. I am not sure it costs 90 grand more, but there are significant costs I would anticipate. These are off the top of my head. I haven't had chance to research. First and foremost: Solitary confinement is expensive. The basic cost of housing the prisoner equals the total cost of running the prison block divided by the number of cells divided by the number of prisoners per cell. So if there are two prisoners per cell in genpop, the isolated death row prisoner costs 2x the normal. If there are three prisoners per cell in genpop, the death row inmate costs 3x the genpop prisoner. Second: Medical expenses. Being in solitary for years and decades can cause health problems. Physical health problems from lack of exercise, access to sunlight, etc. And mental health problems caused by isolation. And the state is antsy about getting the inmate the best medical and mental health care in order to make sure he is alive and mentally fit for execution. Third: Suicide watch. In one of the great ironies of the death penalty system, the state is anxious that the prisoners not kill themselves. But being under a sentence of death, in isolation, for decades, can lead to severe mental health problems, self-harming behaviors and attempts at suicide. Prisoners on suicide watch need more supervision, and additional supervision costs money. Fourth: Specialist training: I don't know this, but I expect guards on DR get special training because they (occasionally) have to perform special duties. Obviously on D-day, but there are probably special security protocols for family visits, lawyer visits, and trips to court. Moreover, they have to be equipped to deal with people in a poor mental state, with no ability to earn the usual incentives and privileges to keep them peaceful. Nor can they be punished for bad behavior by sending them to solitary. Specialist training costs money, and the state might pick up the tab. Fifth: Salaries. Again, I don't know this, but I would not be surprised if guards on DR are paid more in return for their special training and duties, and the additional difficulties associated with the job. Sixth: Sundry expenses, e.g. the fact that at most DRs, they keep the lights on 24/7 (for suicide watch). They may put TVs in each cell (to reduce the deleterious mental health effects of solitary) and so on. I too don't see 90 grand a year in any of that. 2 appeals within 2-3 years MAX then raise the gallows will aliviate most of these costs. How about we do THAT for 20-30 years THEN decide which model works best? I agree that a speedy execution, with no appeals, is the cheapest system, for sure. The problem with that is that it is very, very expensive to get to that place from where we currently are. Unless I am missing something, there are only two ways to abolish or seriously amend the appeals system. Route 1: The state finds some ingenious new grounds on which to re-litigate the right to appeal. It takes it through the courts and eventually to the SCOTUS, argues the case successfully, and BOOM, a SCOTUS ruling overturns the old system. The obvious problem is to find some "ingenious" grounds that have not already been considered, but which have a great chance of success. I would assume that all the strong arguments have already been heard. The state would be forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel for justifications, and would be spending money with correspondingly little eventual hope of success. Another problem is that, even if you find a new argument, the court may interpret it narrowly, as affecting one form of appeal. The SCOTUS usually does this. They don't like to make sweeping rulings if they can make narrow, nit-picky ones. Even if the justification for abolishing appeals has wide application, the state might have to try to abolish each kind of appeal separately. A third problem is that "Abolish appeals because we wanna save money!" is not an argument that will run in front of SCOTUS. So the state that really just wants to save money is going to have to argue disingenuously, using a different, constitutionally grounded argument as a rationale for the $$$ saving ruling that it really wants. The problem with this strategy, apart from the august members of the SCOTUS seeing right through it, is that the court may issue a ruling that addresses the constitutional concern but not the expense. Indeed, the court may end up issuing a compromise that is even more expensive to the state. And a fourth problem is that, because those costs accrue prior to any potential cost-saving changes in the law, the state is going to have to pick up the tab for all this legal maneuvering in tandem with fighting the appeals of DR inmates. That may mean that the state would have to spread its legal budget between the two, and temporarily risk some DR inmates succeeding in their appeals for lack of well-funded opposition. If, after all that, the state succeeds---and it will take years and years--- then the money saved through speedy executions might eventually pay back the cost of the legal battle. However, I can't even speculate on how long that would take. Route 2: A constitutional amendment. If you thought Route One was a no hoper.... Getting super-majorities in both houses and ratified by the states is going to mean getting some large number of antis(?), Democrats and blue states on board, and it will be a long, uphill battle with little chance of success. This, however, would be a political fight, rather than a judicial one, and so the costs would likely be spread out over donors rather than taxpayers. So I don't have any objections as a taxpayer to this.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on May 15, 2018 16:46:51 GMT -6
I agree that a speedy execution, with no appeals, is the cheapest system, for sure. The problem with that is that it is very, very expensive to get to that place from where we currently are. Unless I am missing something, there are only two ways to abolish or seriously amend the appeals system. Route 1: The state finds some ingenious new grounds on which to re-litigate the right to appeal. It takes it through the courts and eventually to the SCOTUS, argues the case successfully, and BOOM, a SCOTUS ruling overturns the old system. The obvious problem is to find some "ingenious" grounds that have not already been considered, but which have a great chance of success. I would assume that all the strong arguments have already been heard. The state would be forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel for justifications, and would be spending money with correspondingly little eventual hope of success. Another problem is that, even if you find a new argument, the court may interpret it narrowly, as affecting one form of appeal. The SCOTUS usually does this. They don't like to make sweeping rulings if they can make narrow, nit-picky ones. Even if the justification for abolishing appeals has wide application, the state might have to try to abolish each kind of appeal separately. A third problem is that "Abolish appeals because we wanna save money!" is not an argument that will run in front of SCOTUS. So the state that really just wants to save money is going to have to argue disingenuously, using a different, constitutionally grounded argument as a rationale for the $$$ saving ruling that it really wants. The problem with this strategy, apart from the august members of the SCOTUS seeing right through it, is that the court may issue a ruling that addresses the constitutional concern but not the expense. Indeed, the court may end up issuing a compromise that is even more expensive to the state. And a fourth problem is that, because those costs accrue prior to any potential cost-saving changes in the law, the state is going to have to pick up the tab for all this legal maneuvering in tandem with fighting the appeals of DR inmates. That may mean that the state would have to spread its legal budget between the two, and temporarily risk some DR inmates succeeding in their appeals for lack of well-funded opposition. If, after all that, the state succeeds---and it will take years and years--- then the money saved through speedy executions might eventually pay back the cost of the legal battle. However, I can't even speculate on how long that would take. All of this is beside the point. Support for capital punishment in the United States has never been weaker. The U.S. supremes aren't going to do the death penalty states any favors as long as the "pros" trip over themselves trying to sanitize executions and make them more palatable. A constitutional amendment. That's the only thing that will work, and should have happened by now. Popular amendments to the Constitution fly through Congress and are ratified rapidly by the states.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 15, 2018 18:27:21 GMT -6
I too don't see 90 grand a year in any of that. 2 appeals within 2-3 years MAX then raise the gallows will aliviate most of these costs. How about we do THAT for 20-30 years THEN decide which model works best? I agree that a speedy execution, with no appeals, is the cheapest system, for sure. The problem with that is that it is very, very expensive to get to that place from where we currently are. Unless I am missing something, there are only two ways to abolish or seriously amend the appeals system. Route 1: The state finds some ingenious new grounds on which to re-litigate the right to appeal. It takes it through the courts and eventually to the SCOTUS, argues the case successfully, and BOOM, a SCOTUS ruling overturns the old system. The obvious problem is to find some "ingenious" grounds that have not already been considered, but which have a great chance of success. I would assume that all the strong arguments have already been heard. The state would be forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel for justifications, and would be spending money with correspondingly little eventual hope of success. Another problem is that, even if you find a new argument, the court may interpret it narrowly, as affecting one form of appeal. The SCOTUS usually does this. They don't like to make sweeping rulings if they can make narrow, nit-picky ones. Even if the justification for abolishing appeals has wide application, the state might have to try to abolish each kind of appeal separately. A third problem is that "Abolish appeals because we wanna save money!" is not an argument that will run in front of SCOTUS. So the state that really just wants to save money is going to have to argue disingenuously, using a different, constitutionally grounded argument as a rationale for the $$$ saving ruling that it really wants. The problem with this strategy, apart from the august members of the SCOTUS seeing right through it, is that the court may issue a ruling that addresses the constitutional concern but not the expense. Indeed, the court may end up issuing a compromise that is even more expensive to the state. And a fourth problem is that, because those costs accrue prior to any potential cost-saving changes in the law, the state is going to have to pick up the tab for all this legal maneuvering in tandem with fighting the appeals of DR inmates. That may mean that the state would have to spread its legal budget between the two, and temporarily risk some DR inmates succeeding in their appeals for lack of well-funded opposition. If, after all that, the state succeeds---and it will take years and years--- then the money saved through speedy executions might eventually pay back the cost of the legal battle. However, I can't even speculate on how long that would take. Route 2: A constitutional amendment. If you thought Route One was a no hoper.... Getting super-majorities in both houses and ratified by the states is going to mean getting some large number of antis(?), Democrats and blue states on board, and it will be a long, uphill battle with little chance of success. This, however, would be a political fight, rather than a judicial one, and so the costs would likely be spread out over donors rather than taxpayers. So I don't have any objections as a taxpayer to this. i didn't say abolish the appeals system, fix it. but it is probably impossible to even mess with it. but when one does want to blame DP based on costs, THAT is where the vast majority of it lies. if we do away with the DP, again, I can live with that. its when anti's bring up false reasons to be against it when speedier executions would solve most of those that I get irritated. everything else is not a DP issue but a court issue, again, fix it there. I wonder what a general nationwide ballot issue would bring about. it would be almost fun to watch, winner take all. but then again the "winner take all" took almost all the electoral votes recently and a certain crowd simply cannot deal with it. still it would be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 15, 2018 18:52:06 GMT -6
How did we get to such a long legal mess? In another words, say 20-30 decades ago did appeals drag out for decades, if given the DP how many decades did it take to execute?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 15, 2018 19:35:52 GMT -6
How did we get to such a long legal mess? In another words, say 20-30 decades ago did appeals drag out for decades, if given the DP how many decades did it take to execute? I don't know but I doubt they dragged on. does the appeals process date back to the constitution? (too lazy to google right now, dinners on) and who in Gods name decided more than one appeal was ok?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 19:40:14 GMT -6
Looking over a lot of the research, it seems like the costs are factored differently depending on the state and what researchers were trying to show. Some studies seemed to incorporate all court level costs onto those ones executed. So, if a state seeks death in 500 cases in a ten year period, and each case cost $1 million (for trial), and 10 were executed, then it cost taxpayers $500 million dollars to execute 10 murderers in 10 years. Or, $5 million each per year. And, that's without factoring in incarceration or appeals. Studies done in CA are more definitive I think and where I get the $90 grand more (a conservative estimate ~ some are more, some less). According to ccfaj.org/ it costs $90 thousand more to house someone on death row over the cost of keeping them in maximum security prisons. Another study done in 1988 by the Sacramento Bee, shows we spend over $90 million on DP cases over that of non DP cases, $78 million of it on trials. Reducing appeals wouldn't change that. Another done by the LA times (2005) using state and federal records shows our costs $114 million a year above the costs of locking them up for life. This cost doesn't take into consideration court cost. They concluded that CA spent over a quarter billion dollars for each of the 11 murderers executed at that time. This is separate from the $90 grand on housing them on death row. The latest study done in CA by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Loyola Law School Professor Paula M. Mitchell shows that Californians have spent over $4 billion on Capital Punishment since it was reinstated ~ over $300 million on each of the 13 murderers executed.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 15, 2018 20:45:55 GMT -6
Californians have spent over $4 billion on Capital Punishment since it was reinstated ~ over $300 million on each of the 13 murderers executed. Really? THAT'S the math you want to use? So because Californicated refuses to execute anyone you want to make it sound like executions cost 300 million. And there ARE people who will believe that. Tell you what, crunch the numbers on what the state of Utah has spent on gary gilmore since his arrest in the summer of 76 all the way through, say, close of business yesterday. Since you're still fixated on costs, tell me what you think of the Gilmore thrift.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 15, 2018 23:09:49 GMT -6
I agree that a speedy execution, with no appeals, is the cheapest system, for sure. The problem with that is that it is very, very expensive to get to that place from where we currently are. Unless I am missing something, there are only two ways to abolish or seriously amend the appeals system. Route 1: The state finds some ingenious new grounds on which to re-litigate the right to appeal. It takes it through the courts and eventually to the SCOTUS, argues the case successfully, and BOOM, a SCOTUS ruling overturns the old system. The obvious problem is to find some "ingenious" grounds that have not already been considered, but which have a great chance of success. I would assume that all the strong arguments have already been heard. The state would be forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel for justifications, and would be spending money with correspondingly little eventual hope of success. Another problem is that, even if you find a new argument, the court may interpret it narrowly, as affecting one form of appeal. The SCOTUS usually does this. They don't like to make sweeping rulings if they can make narrow, nit-picky ones. Even if the justification for abolishing appeals has wide application, the state might have to try to abolish each kind of appeal separately. A third problem is that "Abolish appeals because we wanna save money!" is not an argument that will run in front of SCOTUS. So the state that really just wants to save money is going to have to argue disingenuously, using a different, constitutionally grounded argument as a rationale for the $$$ saving ruling that it really wants. The problem with this strategy, apart from the august members of the SCOTUS seeing right through it, is that the court may issue a ruling that addresses the constitutional concern but not the expense. Indeed, the court may end up issuing a compromise that is even more expensive to the state. And a fourth problem is that, because those costs accrue prior to any potential cost-saving changes in the law, the state is going to have to pick up the tab for all this legal maneuvering in tandem with fighting the appeals of DR inmates. That may mean that the state would have to spread its legal budget between the two, and temporarily risk some DR inmates succeeding in their appeals for lack of well-funded opposition. If, after all that, the state succeeds---and it will take years and years--- then the money saved through speedy executions might eventually pay back the cost of the legal battle. However, I can't even speculate on how long that would take. All of this is beside the point. Support for capital punishment in the United States has never been weaker. The U.S. supremes aren't going to do the death penalty states any favors as long as the "pros" trip over themselves trying to sanitize executions and make them more palatable. A constitutional amendment. That's the only thing that will work, and should have happened by now. Popular amendments to the Constitution fly through Congress and are ratified rapidly by the states. I am not sure what you mean. If by "popular amendment" you mean something like what James Wilson proposed, that possibility has never been realized with respect to the US constitution. Maybe you're speaking about California? If you simply mean an amendment that happens to be popular, how would you expect an amendment designed to more speedily execute inmates to be "popular" when, in your own words, "Support for capital punishment in the United States has never been weaker"?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on May 16, 2018 8:01:24 GMT -6
how would you expect an amendment designed to more speedily execute inmates to be "popular" when, in your own words, "Support for capital punishment in the United States has never been weaker"? That's my point. Americans really don't want a death penalty that means anything. If they did, a repeal of the Eighth Amendment would fly through Congress and be ratified, the way a repeal of the the 18th was. It is silly to blame the courts for the desuetude of capital punishment when "supporters" won't lift a finger to save it.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on May 16, 2018 8:12:34 GMT -6
Really? THAT'S the math you want to use? So because Californicated refuses to execute anyone you want to make it sound like executions cost 300 million. And there ARE people who will believe that. Tell you what, crunch the numbers on what the state of Utah has spent on gary gilmore since his arrest in the summer of 76 all the way through, say, close of business yesterday. Since you're still fixated on costs, tell me what you think of the Gilmore thrift. The numbers don't lie. At $60,000 a year, more or less, the costs of lifetime incarceration of an inmate amount to maybe $2 million to $3 million. That is pocket change compared to what it costs to prosecute a capital case and follow it through all the way to the federal circuit courts. Every appellant has that right, at taxpayers' expense. Ironically it was the aftermath of the Gary Mark Gilmore case that produced this result. Since he was executed, no inmate is allowed to plead guilty to a capital offense unless execution is off the table. Also, since then, condemned inmates do not have to consent to appeals filed on their behalf. The appeals are filed whether the inmates like it or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2018 8:55:21 GMT -6
Californians have spent over $4 billion on Capital Punishment since it was reinstated ~ over $300 million on each of the 13 murderers executed. Really? THAT'S the math you want to use? So because Californicated refuses to execute anyone you want to make it sound like executions cost 300 million. And there ARE people who will believe that. Tell you what, crunch the numbers on what the state of Utah has spent on gary gilmore since his arrest in the summer of 76 all the way through, say, close of business yesterday. Since you're still fixated on costs, tell me what you think of the Gilmore thrift. That wasn't part of the comparison. But, you're right, let's use Utah instead. In the last 20 years, Utah has spent $40 million on 165 death eligible cases, resulting in 2 death sentences and 1 execution. So, it's only $40 million to execute 1.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 16, 2018 10:42:11 GMT -6
Really? THAT'S the math you want to use? So because Californicated refuses to execute anyone you want to make it sound like executions cost 300 million. And there ARE people who will believe that. Tell you what, crunch the numbers on what the state of Utah has spent on gary gilmore since his arrest in the summer of 76 all the way through, say, close of business yesterday. Since you're still fixated on costs, tell me what you think of the Gilmore thrift. That wasn't part of the comparison. But, you're right, let's use Utah instead. In the last 20 years, Utah has spent $40 million on 165 death eligible cases, resulting in 2 death sentences and 1 execution. So, it's only $40 million to execute 1. couldn't answer the gary gilmore thing, huh? we should tell people THAT is what an execution costs. or can, or should.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on May 16, 2018 10:44:12 GMT -6
we should tell people THAT is what an execution costs. or can, or should. Should, yes, but it never will. The "pros" have made that impossible.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 16, 2018 10:50:25 GMT -6
Really? THAT'S the math you want to use? So because Californicated refuses to execute anyone you want to make it sound like executions cost 300 million. And there ARE people who will believe that. Tell you what, crunch the numbers on what the state of Utah has spent on gary gilmore since his arrest in the summer of 76 all the way through, say, close of business yesterday. Since you're still fixated on costs, tell me what you think of the Gilmore thrift. That wasn't part of the comparison. But, you're right, let's use Utah instead. In the last 20 years, Utah has spent $40 million on 165 death eligible cases, resulting in 2 death sentences and 1 execution. So, it's only $40 million to execute 1. good thing you're such a staunch supporter of the second amendment, otherwise you'd fall for anti gun propaganda because they use the same math as you. let's take every dime spent on firearms and every penny spent on every bullet for any given year. then let's take every self defense shooting that actually results in the death of the attacker for the same year. now you can only used "killed" not shot, wounded, scared off, stopped or held for police. we need these figures to be as scary as possible. you'll probably find out that an act of self defense costs 40 quadrillion dollars and therefore self defense is not a viable reason to buy a gun. never mind that to the "one" person saved, "one" is a pretty big number. sorta like your closure bs. 'bamavoters, waddya do?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 16, 2018 10:52:31 GMT -6
we should tell people THAT is what an execution costs. or can, or should. Should, yes, but it never will. The "pros" have made that impossible. yup, I know. but it's still sport, as it irritates the WW's out there.
|
|