Morality in American

[PlunderBunny]

The reason the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment is that they don't take convicted people out into the courtyard and shoot 'em or hang 'em as soon as the verdict is rendered. Then it would only cost the price of a bullet or a rope and scaffold (both of which are reusable). Make the family pay the costs of the burial, or if they can't afford it, throw the body into the city dump and let it rot with the rest of the garbage....

I'm sorry, but this is totally false.

LOL... Really??? You mean it's not true??? LOL....

I can't believe you took those as serious comments. Have you no sense of sardonic humor? Do you not understand sarcasm? Did you not see the " " at the end of my comment?

Jim

P.S. If I see someone rape and murder my child, I want to be allowed to torture him/her to death... but that's just my sick sense of vengeance speaking. In reality, as we've all heard before, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." (The Lord's sense of vengeance isn't sick... it's justice....)

Wow. . . I'm sorry that I have no idea who you are or what your views are and took your post in a serious discussion board to be truthful.

Next time I'll keep an eye out for your fantastic sense of sardonic humor.

Thanks for treating my misunderstanding with kindness and poise instead of being incredulous and acting like I was some sort of idiot for not knowing that the " " was the international sign for sarcasm.

P.S. Obviously I didn't literally believe everything you said, because I'm not an idiot. I mainly was addressing the overall idea that your 'awesome' sarcasm began with; that death row inmates cost more because the people on death row are kept there for too long, which had previously been brought up in this thread. Since I don't know you at all it was not unreasonable for me to form the conclusion that you actually believed that.

[mitchellmckain]

I imagine that the death penalty might in some instances cause a 'nothing to lose' or a 'lets play safe' [by killing a potential witness] attitude in some people committing crimes or thinking about doing so. I don't think that would improve public safety.

That only applies if the death penalty is something that is freely dispensed for breaking laws and not as I have been suggesting something which is only motivated by public safety. It is the indiscriminant killer who is a threat to public safety and its just nonsense to apply such a 'nothing to lose' idea to such people because they just don't care one way or the other. If we really are talking about people who are actually thinking about what they have to lose, then the argument would go the other way because then they are motivated to demonstrate that they are not indiscriminatnt killers.

I'm sorry, but this is totally false. The reason the death penalty costs more is because the trials are way more expensive than non-death penalty trials, because extra money must be spent on investigation and defense where the death penalty is concerned.

AHHHH! So the idea is that if there is no death penalty then we save money by doing a sloppy job because then they are just going to prison for their whole life -- never mind the fact that you think this is an even worse punishment than death. So by your own arguments, the death penalty results in more wrongful imprisonment and more suffering for innocent people. Good job!

There was a study - I believe it was also mentioned somewhere in gary's first link - that showed prisoners who had less money spent on representation were twice as likely to receive a death sentence. I don't know about you, but to me that seems like a terrible thing. If there must be a death penalty, I want it to be fair, rare, and most of all SURE of it's convicted.

LOL I think that problem is accross the board and thus has NOTHING to do with the death penalty. That is people who have less money spent on representation are more likely to be convicted no matter WHAT The penalties may be. If anything you are proving that if death penalty is involved then we make more effort and spend more money to make sure our convictions are sound.

[PlunderBunny]

AHHHH! So the idea is that if there is no death penalty then we save money by doing a sloppy job because then they are just going to prison for their whole life -- never mind the fact that you think this is an even worse punishment than death. So by your own arguments, the death penalty results in more wrongful imprisonment and more suffering for innocent people. Good job!

Yeah. . . You would be spot on if I were making that argument. As I said before - of course you ignored it - it is not about the money to me. I was merely giving an analysis of a set of data. I never said if this was a good or bad thing, and I never said or even implied that the death penalty should be abolished because it costs too much. So. . . Good job on defeating the argument that no one put forth, I guess.

LOL I think that problem is accross the board and thus has NOTHING to do with the death penalty. That is people who have less money spent on representation are more likely to be convicted no matter WHAT The penalties may be. If anything you are proving that if death penalty is involved then we make more effort and spend more money to make sure our convictions are sound.

I agree with all of this. You make way too many assumptions.

[gary_s]

That only applies if the death penalty is something that is freely dispensed for breaking laws and not as I have been suggesting something which is only motivated by public safety.

I'm not sure about your premise on this, Mitch. Is the motivation really public safety? Perhaps, but I suspect it's more nuanced than that. As Plunder pointed out, prison escapes are pretty rare, particularly for top security prisons. A far more likely situation is parole for serious offenders, but that doesn't apply for lifers.

It is the indiscriminant killer who is a threat to public safety and its just nonsense to apply such a 'nothing to lose' idea to such people because they just don't care one way or the other. If we really are talking about people who are actually thinking about what they have to lose, then the argument would go the other way because then they are motivated to demonstrate that they are not indiscriminatnt killers.

From what little I do know about psychopathic killers, I don't believe there is any true deterrence for their behavior. In some cases they actually have an internal need to be caught and punished. But I think the occurrence of serial killers escaping or being released is very rare. Some would argue that we should keep at least some of them alive for psychological evaluation to help determine the causes of this behavior.

AHHHH! So the idea is that if there is no death penalty then we save money by doing a sloppy job because then they are just going to prison for their whole life -- never mind the fact that you think this is an even worse punishment than death. So by your own arguments, the death penalty results in more wrongful imprisonment and more suffering for innocent people. Good job!

That's jumping to a conclusion. By not pursuing executions, states would save money for certain, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's sloppy; that just doesn't follow.

If anything you are proving that if death penalty is involved then we make more effort and spend more money to make sure our convictions are sound.

No, this doesn't follow either. The prosecution is motivated to get convictions, not necessarily the right conviction. Any conviction looks good to the public. If it's the wrong guy, the right guy isn't about to make a fuss about it. I don't know exactly what makes death penalty trials cost so much more, but it isn't because they want to make sure they get the right guy. There are simply too many cases where innocent men have overturned their convictions while on death row for that one to be true. I do know that once you are on death row you have an abundance of appeal opportunities and all of those cost the state money, too. And it's good we have those appeals because some people are exonerated.

[JustJim]

Wow. . . I'm sorry that I have no idea who you are or what your views are and took your post in a serious discussion board to be truthful.

Next time I'll keep an eye out for your fantastic sense of sardonic humor.

Thanks for treating my misunderstanding with kindness and poise instead of being incredulous and acting like I was some sort of idiot for not knowing that the " " was the international sign for sarcasm.

P.S. Obviously I didn't literally believe everything you said, because I'm not an idiot. I mainly was addressing the overall idea that your 'awesome' sarcasm began with; that death row inmates cost more because the people on death row are kept there for too long, which had previously been brought up in this thread. Since I don't know you at all it was not unreasonable for me to form the conclusion that you actually believed that.

Sarcasm is so much better when it's so much less obvious...

Anyhow, that said, it's nice to make your acquaintance...

Jim

[Dr Mundo]

AHHHH! So the idea is that if there is no death penalty then we save money by doing a sloppy job because then they are just going to prison for their whole life -- never mind the fact that you think this is an even worse punishment than death. So by your own arguments, the death penalty results in more wrongful imprisonment and more suffering for innocent people. Good job!

. . . Good job on defeating the argument that no one put forth, I guess.

That is probably the bulk of what you will get from that guy. I tried for a long time to have polite and informative discussions with him, but save yourself some time. This person is a troll and nothing more.

[mitchellmckain]

That is probably the bulk of what you will get from that guy. I tried for a long time to have polite and informative discussions with him, but save yourself some time. This person is a troll and nothing more

I guess that name calling and categorizing people is what we can expect Dr. Mundo when he gets fustrated with you. He is ok as long as you agree with his opinions on objectively undecidable issues or at the very least grant him the exclusive right to insult you for daring to believe things that he cannot. That is what you would expect from someone who is an intolerant bigot and nothing more.

[Keep The Reason]

AHHHH! So the idea is that if there is no death penalty then we save money by doing a sloppy job because then they are just going to prison for their whole life -- never mind the fact that you think this is an even worse punishment than death. So by your own arguments, the death penalty results in more wrongful imprisonment and more suffering for innocent people. Good job!

This argument is simply bad. The issue isn't about money or sloppiness, the issue is about making decisions that are irreversible and beyond any sense of compensation when you do make a mistake.

Life in prison is of course a miserable experience, though it must be noted that there is some path to rehabilitation (this doesn't mean release, it means having a positive impact rather than just the negative one you were incarcerated for), but if you are executed, and it's discovered a mistake was made, there is no possible way to compensate. While you are alive, there are ways to compensate even if they are weak.

The dead have no such compensation, nor can they... ever.

I've yet to read of a single case where an exonerated individual released from prison has refused their day of justice and demanded death. They are celebratory when the injustice is discovered and reversed.

The dead have no such moment, nor can they... ever.

Wrongly executions are murder, plain and simple. And those involved in them are co-conspirators by definition. That means everyone from the gu who throws the switch to a random citizen of the state.

I reject being cast in this role on principle. Do not execute human beings in my name.

[mitchellmckain]

I'm not sure about your premise on this, Mitch. Is the motivation really public safety?

Yes I am quite sure about my own motivations for supporting the death penalty.

I never said anything about what the motivations of anyone else are, but only what I think they should be.

From what little I do know about psychopathic killers, I don't believe there is any true deterrence for their behavior.

Yep that is my understanding also. Precisely my point. But for those who are not psychopathic killers -- for those who actually do give a damn, the motivation would work the other way from what was suggested. They would be interested in demonstrating that they are not a threat to public safety.

Some would argue that we should keep at least some of them alive for psychological evaluation to help determine the causes of this behavior.

Oh yes the groupies really do want them to be kept alive don't they. But I do not see any such value in them.

AHHHH! So the idea is that if there is no death penalty then we save money by doing a sloppy job because then they are just going to prison for their whole life -- never mind the fact that you think this is an even worse punishment than death. So by your own arguments, the death penalty results in more wrongful imprisonment and more suffering for innocent people. Good job!

That's jumping to a conclusion. By not pursuing executions, states would save money for certain, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's sloppy; that just doesn't follow.

Hey its either one or the other. Either we are just spending money unnecessarily when there is the death penalty OR we aren't spending the money we should when there isn't. But frankly I think it is all just bullshit. Just because the trials that involve the death penalty are more expensive on average does NOT mean that the same trials would be less expensive if there was no death penalty. I think it is just the nature of the cases where we would seek the death penalty.

If anything you are proving that if death penalty is involved then we make more effort and spend more money to make sure our convictions are sound.

No, this doesn't follow either. The prosecution is motivated to get convictions, not necessarily the right conviction. Any conviction looks good to the public. If it's the wrong guy, the right guy isn't about to make a fuss about it. I don't know exactly what makes death penalty trials cost so much more, but it isn't because they want to make sure they get the right guy. There are simply too many cases where innocent men have overturned their convictions while on death row for that one to be true. I do know that once you are on death row you have an abundance of appeal opportunities and all of those cost the state money, too. And it's good we have those appeals because some people are exonerated.

I think it does follow as night follows day. The logic clearly dictates that this means you are giving people less appeal opportunities when they are not on death row. Apparently we don't think we have to spend the money when people are just going to prison.

[gary_s]

Yes I am quite sure about my own motivations for supporting the death penalty.
I never said anything about what the motivations of anyone else are, but only what I think they should be.

Actually, my question is regarding society in general. I wonder what the consensus would say our real motivation is for the death penalty is. This quote by Montana's state senator makes the answer murky:

"The death penalty is a needed instrument of justice," McGee says. "It ought not be used often. I think it should be used only in specific cases where it's absolutely clear you have the right person and that an absolutely heinous crime has been done."

So, I don't disagree with him, but what is the actual gain here? If the crime is heinous and we are 100% certain we have the right person, how is execution any different than life in prison? The offender is removed from the public and can no longer do any harm. He may be referring to something that we haven't actually discussed here. Murderers are often motivated to accept a plea deal that will keep them off death row. Without the threat of the death penalty, this would be more difficult because then the maximum penalty they could be threatened with would be life in prison. As it stands now, offenders often plead guilty and accept life in prison to avoid the potential of execution. So by accepting the deal, the murderer avoids death and the prosecution avoids a trail which may not result in a conviction. Win-win. That certainly qualifies as an "instrument of justice".

Oh yes the groupies really do want them to be kept alive don't they. But I do not see any such value in them.

There are "groupies" for psychopaths?

Hey its either one or the other. Either we are just spending money unnecessarily when there is the death penalty OR we aren't spending the money we should when there isn't.

Who says the money spent is "unnecessary"? If I was on trial for a murder I didn't commit, I would want every effort and every dollar spent to insure I was acquitted and frankly, I wouldn't care where the money came from. Death penalty trials do cost more; there is a difference in the two that shouldn't be ignored.

But frankly I think it is all just bullshit. Just because the trials that involve the death penalty are more expensive on average does NOT mean that the same trials would be less expensive if there was no death penalty.

I think it is the nature of cases involving the death penalty. From what I've read, they require two phases, conviction then sentencing. Selecting a jury for death penalty cases is also more expensive because the prosecution is trying to screen for people who would be willing to dole out a death sentence. And the defense puts up a bigger fight because of what is at stake (a life). If the defense is a public defendant, then the state is paying for both sides of the trial. The numbers are not precise, but they tend to be in the billions annually nationwide.

I think it does follow as night follows day. The logic clearly dictates that this means you are giving people less appeal opportunities when they are not on death row. Apparently we don't think we have to spend the money when people are just going to prison.

Most death row inmates appeal the sentence, not the conviction itself, although some appeal the conviction also. If you have 3,000 people on death row and 90% of them are appealing their death sentence, then you can do the math; it gets very expensive. Do inmates with life sentences appeal their sentences at the same rate? I don't know. Should we limit the number of appeals? I have no idea.

[mitchellmckain]

Murderers are often motivated to accept a plea deal that will keep them off death row. Without the threat of the death penalty, this would be more difficult because then the maximum penalty they could be threatened with would be life in prison. As it stands now, offenders often plead guilty and accept life in prison to avoid the potential of execution. So by accepting the deal, the murderer avoids death and the prosecution avoids a trail which may not result in a conviction. Win-win. That certainly qualifies as an "instrument of justice".

Ah but then there are other problems with such plea bargains. The innocent can be convinced that they must accept such deals because they have no chance of winning, and if the innocent don't accept the deals then they can disproportionately be the ones getting the worst penalties.

[gary_s]

Murderers are often motivated to accept a plea deal that will keep them off death row. Without the threat of the death penalty, this would be more difficult because then the maximum penalty they could be threatened with would be life in prison. As it stands now, offenders often plead guilty and accept life in prison to avoid the potential of execution. So by accepting the deal, the murderer avoids death and the prosecution avoids a trail which may not result in a conviction. Win-win. That certainly qualifies as an "instrument of justice".

Ah but then there are other problems with such plea bargains. The innocent can be convinced that they must accept such deals because they have no chance of winning, and if the innocent don't accept the deals then they can disproportionately be the ones getting the worst penalties.

Yes, you are making the point crystal clear. Threaten a guy (who is innocent) with the death penalty and he may accept a life penalty for a crime he didn't commit. The prosecution doesn't really care; all they are interested in is closing the case. Even if the guy appeals and gets a new trial and is set free, it's liable to be years later and no one remembers who put them behind bars. So "instrument of justice" is a very interesting comment because what it really means is it's a tool the prosecution uses to get someone behind bars. Now that isn't necessarily Justice, is it?

There's a case that fits this perfectly, the Boston Strangler from the 1970's. It was a serial killer who strangled and raped his victims. I read a book about it and a black man was arrested and charged with the crime despite significant evidence to the contrary. He accepted a plea of guilty for life in prison but appealed for years and was actually granted amnesty on some sort of legal grounds. But he contracted lung cancer and died in prison. The (assumed) real killer was eventually jailed on some other charge and confessed to the murders to cell mates before his death, but there isn't enough evidence to confirm his claims. Some argue he only memorized details published in the papers. The author of the book, who was a child then, was very close to the story because the killer actually worked for his family as a handyman and one of his victims was only blocks from their home. The killer had slipped away and killed a woman while working for his family. Of course the convicted black man was pretty much a useless lowlife who never amounted to much more than a drunkard, but he wasn't guilty of murder. I found all this fascinating because of the details of the lives of these individuals that was brought out.

[mitchellmckain]

Yes, you are making the point crystal clear. Threaten a guy (who is innocent) with the death penalty and he may accept a life penalty for a crime he didn't commit. The prosecution doesn't really care; all they are interested in is closing the case. Even if the guy appeals and gets a new trial and is set free, it's liable to be years later and no one remembers who put them behind bars. So "instrument of justice" is a very interesting comment because what it really means is it's a tool the prosecution uses to get someone behind bars. Now that isn't necessarily Justice, is it?

There's a case that fits this perfectly, the Boston Strangler from the 1970's. It was a serial killer who strangled and raped his victims. I read a book about it and a black man was arrested and charged with the crime despite significant evidence to the contrary. He accepted a plea of guilty for life in prison but appealed for years and was actually granted amnesty on some sort of legal grounds. But he contracted lung cancer and died in prison. The (assumed) real killer was eventually jailed on some other charge and confessed to the murders to cell mates before his death, but there isn't enough evidence to confirm his claims. Some argue he only memorized details published in the papers. The author of the book, who was a child then, was very close to the story because the killer actually worked for his family as a handyman and one of his victims was only blocks from their home. The killer had slipped away and killed a woman while working for his family. Of course the convicted black man was pretty much a useless lowlife who never amounted to much more than a drunkard, but he wasn't guilty of murder. I found all this fascinating because of the details of the lives of these individuals that was brought out.

Yes making this a good argument for not having the death penalty for the mere purpose of punishing crimes. If the death penalty can be used to threaten the innocent like this then this would not be the sort of death penalty that I would support anyway. As I said the only reason I would have for supporting the death penalty is for the protection of the public and thus it would be for the case of those who demonstrate a consistent habit of preying upon members of the public and I don't think we should be making deals in such cases. And by the way I dont think it really matters if the crime is murder, rape, child abuse or some other crime that does grave harm to other people. Thus the reason for the death penalty that I am talking about has nothing to do with any eye for an eye justice but simply making sure that some sorts of crimes are never again comitted by the same people ever again.

[gary_s]

Yes making this a good argument for not having the death penalty for the mere purpose of punishing crimes. If the death penalty can be used to threaten the innocent like this then this would not be the sort of death penalty that I would support anyway. As I said the only reason I would have for supporting the death penalty is for the protection of the public and thus it would be for the case of those who demonstrate a consitent habit of prey upon members of the public and I don't think we should be making deals in such cases. And by the way I dont think it really matters if the crime is murder, rape, child abuse or some other crime that does grave harm to other people. Thus the reason for the death penalty that I am talking about has nothing to do with any eye for an eye justice but simply making sure that some sorts of crimes are never again comitted by the same people ever again.

Good points. Can't disagree with any of that. For what it's worth, my reading indicated that more and more people are seeing the death penalty as a limited use kind of punishment for cases where the doubt is almost nonexistent. The number of death penalties handed out has been steadily decreasing for some years now, so maybe we're coming to a consensus for a change? Who knows?