22nd Time is the Charm

[etmo]

several told me that it costs more money to execute someone than it does to house, feed and clothe them in prison for their lifetime. I have asked for clarification on that on several occasions during such discussions, but no one had ever given me any answers that made sense to the questions I asked.

There are a number of articles where they break down the costs and claim the death penalty is more expensive than prison for life, but the articles I have read always include the costs of appeals trials as part of the cost of the death penalty.

My claim is that is falsely padding the numbers. The trial costs have nothing to do with the comparison of costs between death and life-without-parole, because the anti-death-penalty crowd are the ones who have forced additional appeals into the system.

Do away with those extra appeals. If due process has been done such that we can conclude a person should be shoved into a tiny box crowded with other psychos for their entire lives, then that's also enough due process to simply kill them, and spare them the nightmare existence of life-without-parole.

 

[Axxe55]

There are a number of articles where they break down the costs and claim the death penalty is more expensive than prison for life, but the articles I have read always include the costs of appeals trials as part of the cost of the death penalty.

My claim is that is falsely padding the numbers. The trial costs have nothing to do with the comparison of costs between death and life-without-parole, because the anti-death-penalty crowd are the ones who have forced additional appeals into the system.

Do away with those extra appeals. If due process has been done such that we can conclude a person should be shoved into a tiny box crowded with other psychos for their entire lives, then that's also enough due process to simply kill them, and spare them the nightmare existence of life-without-parole.

I believe what you're saying and it makes sense, but who bears the cost of appeals? My understanding that is borne by the convicted, or done pro bono, isn't it?

 

[etmo]

I believe what you're saying and it makes sense, but who bears the cost of appeals? My understanding that is borne by the convicted, or done pro bono, isn't it?

The appeals are paid by you and me, the taxpayers of the USA. I don't know enough about pro bono specifics to know if jurisdictions can allow pro-bono work in death penalty appeals...that's a fine point of law I can't answer. It might open up questions of inadequate representation, which is grounds for appeal!
Of course a wealthy person who is going to be put to death would hire a super-fancy lawyer, not a court-appointed one, but the wealthy are pretty much never put to death.

And since we're talking death penalty, let's do away with another myth:

"A society can be judged by how well it treats its prisoners". Dostoyevsky is a great writer, but I reject him as an authority on measuring societies, and by any measure, American prisoners, even those who are put to death, are treated better than the vast majority of prisoners on this planet.

It's not a contest of who can kiss the most prisoner a$$ to placate white guilt and the ghost of Dostoyevsky. It's about us, the taxpayers, getting the best value for our money so we can live our lives with the money we work so hard to earn.

 

[Axxe55]

The appeals are paid by you and me, the taxpayers of the USA. I don't know enough about pro bono specifics to know if jurisdictions can allow pro-bono work in death penalty appeals...that's a fine point of law I can't answer. It might open up questions of inadequate representation, which is grounds for appeal!
Of course a wealthy person who is going to be put to death would hire a super-fancy lawyer, not a court-appointed one, but the wealthy are pretty much never put to death.

And since we're talking death penalty, let's do away with another myth:

"A society can be judged by how well it treats its prisoners". Dostoyevsky is a great writer, but I reject him as an authority on measuring societies, and by any measure, American prisoners, even those who are put to death, are treated better than the vast majority of prisoners on this planet.

It's not a contest of who can kiss the most prisoner a$$ to placate white guilt and the ghost of Dostoyevsky. It's about us, the taxpayers, getting the best value for our money so we can live our lives with the money we work so hard to earn.

Personally, I'm very pro-death penalty. I also consider it to be used in the most heinous of cases where by virtue of the accused person's crimes that we as society have determined that the person is beyond any hope of redemption or rehabilitation and that they can never be back in society among civilized people.

I also believe in any case where the death penalty is considered as a sentence recommendation that there also should be a very high standard of beyond ANY reasonable doubt as to guilt of the alleged crimes.

 

[DoubleDuty]

I believe that the argument is that getting to an execution traditionally requires paying lawyers and expending court and other public resources to get through the lengthy appeals process. Those expenditures are massive. When you tally up all the numbers, it might be cheaper to just house the convicted for the rest of their life.

Not sure. Haven't studied it. But I think that's a reasonable guess.

That's exactly it

 

[DoubleDuty]

Personally, I'm very pro-death penalty. I also consider it to be used in the most heinous of cases where by virtue of the accused person's crimes that we as society have determined that the person is beyond any hope of redemption or rehabilitation and that they can never be back in society among civilized people.

I also believe in any case where the death penalty is considered as a sentence recommendation that there also should be a very high standard of beyond ANY reasonable doubt as to guilt of the alleged crimes.

It needs to be 100 percent certain because history has shown that innocent people have been put on Death row. This pos should has already proven that death should be instantaneous.

 

[Axxe55]

It needs to be 100 percent certain because history has shown that innocent people have been put on Death row. This pos should has already proven that death should be instantaneous.

Totally agree. And there are many that have been exonerated because forensics have gotten better and proven that innocent people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

 

[pronstar]

Justice will be swift and sure for anyone I find molesting my kids…

 

[Axxe55]

Justice will be swift and sure for anyone I find molesting my kids…

And many of us would lend a helping hand in getting rid of the bodies!

 

[gdr_11]

For me there are two main issues on the death penalty:

- Like any law, it is not the law or the penalty that is what matters, it is how it is enforced or carried out. Death sentence means nothing with the current state of appeals and decades of delay. I agree with death sentence to be defined as "Never to be allowed to live again, effective within 90 days"

- Once death sentence and 90 day appeal period (one appeal only) is over, prisoner should be handed over to a private penal institution without consideration for rights and privileges because, for all intents and purposes, they are already dead. An option would be to contract out these penal colonies to some third world nation where they could earn income and take the scumbags off our hands. No rights, no visitors, etc. They just disappear from society.

This would be clean, far less costly and everyone (but one) could get on with life

 

[ronr68]

The article does not tell us where the perv's previous convictions were but I can bet it was in the Houston or Dallas areas where the DAs are Soros bait. I can't believe he would have ever skated before in Smith County where this sentence was doled out.

Could also have been Austin in our current state of affairs.

 

[kbaxter60]

IIRC 3 strike rule was tossed.

Seven times?

 

[DoubleDuty]

But you have to be 100 percent certain to do that.