Should the death penalty be aborted?

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Which is why I said the process needs to be streamlined and expedited.

Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Which is why I said the process needs to be streamlined and expedited.

Pirate700

Hell that's pretty reasonable, there aren't even that many on death row so it won't clutter up the courts.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="Mochyc"] Although I agree there are other benefits, don't go out spouting "Wrong". Explain your reasoning, otherwise it's really a useless post that is made to annoy.Pixel-Pirate

Problem is it ends up costing more to carry out the execution than it does to keep the prisoner for life. This is mainly due to the right of due process.

So what are the benefits? It's cheaper is a myth.

And I have no desire to screw with the right to due process and trial by peers so that people can get killed easier. If you want someone executed so bad you can always take up vigilantism.

There is a difference in changing due process and making it more efficient. So the fact that it could be a lot cheaper is not a myth.

To make it even simpler we should develope a Rancor pit where they get to fight it out with a stick and a loin cloth.

[QUOTE="Alter_Echo"]

The only part of the death penalty that im not cool with is how long it takes them to kill people. Convicting someone and sentencing them to death and then waiting 20 years to kill them makes absolutely no sense at all.

I know its all wound up in the appeals process and whatnot. If the person is obviously guilty i see no reason why they cant be killed the same day.

Chrypt22

The same day may be a little strong... but I do agree that the waiting period is waayyyy too long. Though it depends on the state.. Texas seems to execute people a lot more than other states. I dont know what their waiting period is.

In 2007, Texas would have ranked #10 on the list of COUNTRIES with executions, right behind Iraq and Taiwan and just ahead of Vietnam and Sierra Leone.

[QUOTE="Alter_Echo"]

The only part of the death penalty that im not cool with is how long it takes them to kill people. Convicting someone and sentencing them to death and then waiting 20 years to kill them makes absolutely no sense at all.

I know its all wound up in the appeals process and whatnot. If the person is obviously guilty i see no reason why they cant be killed the same day.

BuryMe

The right to appeal doesn't only appl to certain people. :|

You cant take away a person's right to due process.

What sense does it make to allow an appeals process for a guy who was caught on videotape and who confessed to mutilating someone in a brutal murder? The end result is going to be the same. Its just going to take a lot longer and cost a lot more money.

Not only is the system antiquated but i would also wager that its more detrimental to society than it would be to streamline and expedite the fruition of death sentences.

The death penalty is a lot less of a burdening deterrent when the convicted person knows they will get to sit in prison for 2 decades before they have to worry about dying.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Which is why I said the process needs to be streamlined and expedited.

Pirate700

The death penalty should never be streamlined to the point of going stright from conviction to execution, though.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]And how do you do that while simultaneously making it cheaper?BuryMe

The death penalty should never be streamlined to the point of going stright from conviction to execution, though.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Which is why I said the process needs to be streamlined and expedited.

Pirate700

That's why I said 5 years and not taken straight to the gallow.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="Alter_Echo"]

The only part of the death penalty that im not cool with is how long it takes them to kill people. Convicting someone and sentencing them to death and then waiting 20 years to kill them makes absolutely no sense at all.

I know its all wound up in the appeals process and whatnot. If the person is obviously guilty i see no reason why they cant be killed the same day.

Alter_Echo

The right to appeal doesn't only appl to certain people. :|

You cant take away a person's right to due process.

What sense does it make to allow an appeals process for a guy who was caught on videotape and who confessed to mutilating someone in a brutal murder? The end result is going to be the same. Its just going to take a lot longer and cost a lot more money.

Not only is the system antiquated but i would also wager that its more detrimental to society than it would be to streamline and expedite the fruition of death sentences.

The death penalty is a lot less of a burdening deterrent when the convicted person knows they will get to sit in prison for 2 decades before they have to worry about dying.

Or just because there's a video, maybe it's not completly clear, and people jumped to conclusions about who is in the video.

Or maybe the person actually has a psychological issue and needs psychiatric help rather than a death sentence.

Just because it seems obvious to you doesn't mean the person's rights are non-existant. EVERY ONE has the right to due process.

And be very careful with confessions. Lots of people confess to crimes they didn't commit, just because the interrogation was so tough. They figure that nothing the legal system can do is as bad as having to endure more hours with cops.

[QUOTE="Chrypt22"]

[QUOTE="Alter_Echo"]

The only part of the death penalty that im not cool with is how long it takes them to kill people. Convicting someone and sentencing them to death and then waiting 20 years to kill them makes absolutely no sense at all.

I know its all wound up in the appeals process and whatnot. If the person is obviously guilty i see no reason why they cant be killed the same day.

3KindgomsRandy

The same day may be a little strong... but I do agree that the waiting period is waayyyy too long. Though it depends on the state.. Texas seems to execute people a lot more than other states. I dont know what their waiting period is.

In 2007, Texas would have ranked #10 on the list of COUNTRIES with executions, right behind Iraq and Taiwan and just ahead of Vietnam and Sierra Leone.

I dont know about that... in 2007 Texas didnt execute that many people. Here is the source. http://txexecutions.org/stats.asp

Either way, things should be more efficient thus lessening the burden on the tax payer.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

That's why I said 5 years and not taken straight to the gallow.

Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="3KindgomsRandy"]

[QUOTE="Chrypt22"]

The same day may be a little strong... but I do agree that the waiting period is waayyyy too long. Though it depends on the state.. Texas seems to execute people a lot more than other states. I dont know what their waiting period is.

Chrypt22

In 2007, Texas would have ranked #10 on the list of COUNTRIES with executions, right behind Iraq and Taiwan and just ahead of Vietnam and Sierra Leone.

I dont know about that... in 2007 Texas didnt execute that many people. Here is the source. http://txexecutions.org/stats.asp

Either way, things should be more efficient thus lessening the burden on the tax payer.

Based on 2007 data

The death penalty should only be used in extreme cases, the rest of the time those people could be put to better use...like in the UK we seriously need fiberoptic cables to be installed, they would be perfect to do manual labor and dig up the roads for the cables.

That's a small part of the cost. Keeping lifers in prison costs an exuberant amount of tax payer dollars. The additional court costs are there regardless of weather he/she is on deathrow or not.

Pirate700

The death penalty should only be used in extreme cases, the rest of the time those people could be put to better use...like in the UK we seriously need fiberoptic cables to be installed, they would be perfect to do manual labor and dig up the roads for the cables.

MushroomWig

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

That's a small part of the cost. Keeping lifers in prison costs an exuberant amount of tax payer dollars. The additional court costs are there regardless of weather he/she is on deathrow or not.

Engrish_Major

It's more expensive because of the current process. Even if they are just sentenced to death there are still appeals and additional court costs with that ruling. Like I said, it needs to be streamlined and made more efficient.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

It's more expensive because of the current process. Even if they are just sentenced to death there are still appeals and additional court costs with that ruling. Like I said, it needs to be streamlined and made more efficient.

Engrish_Major

They got their chance in court. Within 5 years is more than enough time to have a retrial if needed. Being sentenced do death isn't issued all that often. The odds of getting it "wrong" are extremely slim. Those are just the breaks.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

They got their chance in court. Within 5 years is more than enough time to have a retrial if needed. Being sentenced do death isn't issued all that often. The odds of getting it "wrong" are extremely slim. Those are just the breaks.

Engrish_Major

:lol: I don't recall claiming to know the exact details of how to make it happen but way to twist it.

Pirate700

Here's some more:

The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.

•Trials in which the prosecutor is seeking a death sentence have two separate and distinct phases: conviction (guilt/innocence) and sentencing. Special motions and extra time for jury selection typically precede such trials.
•More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.
•When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, taxpayers first incur all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Less than it does to put them to death.Espada12

Can be easily circumvented by shortening and simplifying the appeals process.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

:lol: I don't recall claiming to know the exact details of how to make it happen but way to twist it.

Engrish_Major

They got their chance in court. Within 5 years is more than enough time to have a retrial if needed. Being sentenced do death isn't issued all that often. The odds of getting it "wrong" are extremely slim. Those are just the breaks.

Pirate700

it takes more than 5 years sometimes because the courts are full doing lots of stuff. how would you reduce the time while still providing the same due process? well you'd have to hire more judges, open more courts, hire more staff to run the building, hire more lawyers, etc. and you'll still have to pay for every appeal and hearing so it's not cheaper, and actually more expensive.

Because I don't have the specifics nor does anyone else here or we'd all be working in the field. I think the process needs to be speed up. Hell, in my opinion, one trial is enough but I think there should be time for a retrial within 5 years. To think there is no way to make a final decision within 5 years is ridiculous, IMO. Details beyond that are up to who make such decisions.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Because I don't have the specifics nor does anyone else here or we'd all be working in the field. I think the process needs to be speed up. Hell, in my opinion, one trial is enough but I think there should be time for a retrial within 5 years. To think there is no way to make a final decision within 5 years is ridiculous, IMO. Details beyond that are up to who make such decisions.

Engrish_Major

I'm sure they have. Doesn't mean it would ever go into effect. Rushing a convicted criminal to death isn't the most PC approach and would cause a major stir as this thread proves. Doesn't mean there's not a more economical and time sensitive way to go about it.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Chrypt22"]

[QUOTE="3KindgomsRandy"]

In 2007, Texas would have ranked #10 on the list of COUNTRIES with executions, right behind Iraq and Taiwan and just ahead of Vietnam and Sierra Leone.

3KindgomsRandy

I dont know about that... in 2007 Texas didnt execute that many people. Here is the source. http://txexecutions.org/stats.asp

Either way, things should be more efficient thus lessening the burden on the tax payer.

Based on 2007 data

That data is for the US... you stated that Texas would have been ranked #10.Either way it doesnt seem like that we are killing that many people.

The death penalty creates a difficult situation which forces a balance between finance and accuracy. The more accurate you want it to be, the more money and time you need to invest in due process to reduce the chances of an innocent death - which you can't reverse upon discovering evidence that the person you just executed happens to be an innocent. The less you want to expend on your prisoners, the higher the chance that you'll kill an innocent person. It's still impossible to have a 100% accurate method of determination however. Life sentence doesn't have this issue, so it is a superior choice by default.

There's only one reason the death penalty even exists in so-called "civilized" or "developed" nations - it's because the people there aren't in fact civilized or developed enough to use their reason over their emotion-fueled desire for vengeance. There's no conclusive evidence that the death penalty lowers crimerates and no sane justice system is going to run off arbitrary and once again emotion-fueled judgments of how much punishment a convicted criminal "deserves".

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

I'm sure they have. Doesn't mean it would ever go into effect. Rushing a convicted criminal to death isn't the most PC approach and would cause a major stir as this thread proves. Doesn't mean there's not a more economical and time sensitive way to go about it.

Engrish_Major

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the matter. I'd like to see the process somehow made more efficient. You wouldn't. I'm not going to bother arguing about it anymore.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the matter. I'd like to see the process somehow made more efficient. You wouldn't. I'm not going to bother arguing about it anymore.

Engrish_Major

because you're wrong, pirateJandurin

Regardless of whether or not it saves cost, jails are becoming massively over populated in the United States. And with over population there becomes the issue of increased upkeep and the possibility of having to make more jails. This reduces an areas desirability and costs the tax payers. Morally I'm against it, but I don't know how else to fix the over population problems other then to speed up death row and other such cases.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]because you're wrong, piratePirate700

Regardless of whether or not it saves cost, jails are becoming massively over populated in the United States. And with over population there becomes the issue of increased upkeep and the possibility of having to make more jails. This reduces an areas desirability and costs the tax payers. Morally I'm against it, but I don't know how else to fix the over population problems other then to speed up death row and other such cases.

bacon_is_sweet

[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

Regardless of whether or not it saves cost, jails are becoming massively over populated in the United States. And with over population there becomes the issue of increased upkeep and the possibility of having to make more jails. This reduces an areas desirability and costs the tax payers. Morally I'm against it, but I don't know how else to fix the over population problems other then to speed up death row and other such cases.

Jandurin

And where would they go, just back to the street? Putting them in a state funded mental institute doesn't really fix the money issue ether.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

Regardless of whether or not it saves cost, jails are becoming massively over populated in the United States. And with over population there becomes the issue of increased upkeep and the possibility of having to make more jails. This reduces an areas desirability and costs the tax payers. Morally I'm against it, but I don't know how else to fix the over population problems other then to speed up death row and other such cases.

bacon_is_sweet

And where would they go, just back to the street? Putting them in a state funded mental institute doesn't really fix the money issue ether.

i know its "the ultimate penalty" but i also belive its not good enough for some crimes like multiple killings by a single person. there really only paying back one of the lost lives with there own, so what about the others. its along the same lines as multiple life sentances its not ever going to be a true repayment of their crimes as they can only serve one life sentance and only die once.

to me it seems there getting off easy, they only lose one lifetime compared to multiple they destroyed. their 1 life =/= multiple lives.