The Capital Punishment Debate

[zipperhead_cop]

Bang on, yammit. 

 

[marshall sl]

Milgaard--Jan. 31, 1969
Marshall--sentenced in 1971
Morin-October 3, 1984
Mullins-Johnson-1993  Even if the Death penalty was in effect these men would not have been executed as they did not commit Capital  MURDER( Killing of Police Officer ,Prison Guard etc)

 

[Bane]

I don't agree with the death penalty at all. Captial trials are expensive and I'm not buying the 'we hardly ever make mistakes' hubris.

But were it to come back, I'd throw in with the 'wheel of death' as long as it has 'death by science' on it.

 

[Roy Harding]

I don't agree with the death penalty at all. Captial trials are expensive and I'm not buying the 'we hardly ever make mistakes' hubris.

But were it to come back, I'd throw in with the 'wheel of death' as long as it has 'death by science' on it.

And non-"captial" trials are cheap?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I don't agree with the death penalty at all. Captial trials are expensive and I'm not buying the 'we hardly ever make mistakes' hubris.

Another Nobel Prize submission from Bane. 

 

[Bane]

From my limited understanding of how it works in the U.S. is that if a person is to be executed they must go through an additional process that is very time consuming and expensive.   

Thanks zipperhead, I like prizes.

 

[Bane]

"Death Penalty has Cost New Jersey Taxpayers $253 Million"
Jersey Policy Perspectives report concluded that the state's death penalty has cost taxpayers $253 million since 1983, a figure that is over and above the costs that would have been incurred had the state utilized a sentence of life without parole instead of death. The study examined the costs of death penalty cases to prosecutor offices, public defender offices, courts, and correctional facilities. The report's authors said that the cost estimate is "very conservative" because other significant costs uniquely associated with the death penalty were not available. "From a strictly financial perspective, it is hard to reach a conclusion other than this: New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one," the report concluded. Since 1982, there have been 197 capital trials in New Jersey and 60 death sentences, of which 50 were reversed. There have been no executions, and 10 men are housed on the state's death row. Michael Murphy, former Morris County prosecutor, remarked: "If you were to ask me how $11 million a year could best protect the people of New Jersey, I would tell you by giving the law enforcement community more resources. I'm not interested in hypotheticals or abstractions, I want the tools for law enforcement to do their job, and $11 million can buy a lot of tools." (See Newsday, Nov. 21, 2005; also Press Release, New Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, Nov. 21, 2005). Read the Executive Summary. Read the full report. Read the NJADP Press Release.

 

[Roy Harding]

"Death Penalty has Cost New Jersey Taxpayers $253 Million"
Jersey Policy Perspectives report concluded that the state's death penalty has cost taxpayers $253 million since 1983, a figure that is over and above the costs that would have been incurred had the state utilized a sentence of life without parole instead of death. The study examined the costs of death penalty cases to prosecutor offices, public defender offices, courts, and correctional facilities. The report's authors said that the cost estimate is "very conservative" because other significant costs uniquely associated with the death penalty were not available. "From a strictly financial perspective, it is hard to reach a conclusion other than this: New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one," the report concluded. Since 1982, there have been 197 capital trials in New Jersey and 60 death sentences, of which 50 were reversed. There have been no executions, and 10 men are housed on the state's death row. Michael Murphy, former Morris County prosecutor, remarked: "If you were to ask me how $11 million a year could best protect the people of New Jersey, I would tell you by giving the law enforcement community more resources. I'm not interested in hypotheticals or abstractions, I want the tools for law enforcement to do their job, and $11 million can buy a lot of tools." (See Newsday, Nov. 21, 2005; also Press Release, New Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, Nov. 21, 2005). Read the Executive Summary. Read the full report. Read the NJADP Press Release.

That's extremely interesting.  Have you got a link for that?  I'd be interested to read more.

Roy

 

[Bane]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108

 

[tonykeene]

Milgaard--Jan. 31, 1969
Marshall--sentenced in 1971
Morin-October 3, 1984
Mullins-Johnson-1993  Even if the Death penalty was in effect these men would not have been executed as they did not commit Capital  MURDER( Killing of Police Officer ,Prison Guard etc)

I take your point.  However, the person I was replying to had cited the cases of Pickton, Bernardo et al.  They didn't kill police officers either.  They did however, commit what we now call First Degree Murder, or murder that is planned and pre-meditated.

My point is that even now, as we find more and more cases of this sick crusading pathologist coming under review, and men like Mullins-johnson just now finally being cleared, how many more are there, how many mnore will there be?  There are more than 20 of his cases under review.

And if we bring back the death penalty for cop-killing, and then execute the wrong man for killing a cop, what difference does it make?

Remember, in almost all of these cases everyone...cops, Crown, jury, the public and the media (Yeah, guys like me) believed that justice had been done and that they'd got the bastard.  And then, a few years later...

I'm quite prepared to pay my taxes and have these guys rot in prison for the rest of their lives.  Let's give more resources to the police and the courts, and let's make the law stick (ie no more automatic bail, parole etc without very strict criteria).

In the United States decades ago, white mobs who lynched negroes were absolutely convinced they had got the rapist, murderer etc.  I've seen footage of the mobs at those lynchings, and believe me, the sound and the look was no different from what was waiting for Guy Paul Morin when he made his court appearances.

Maybe some are prepared to execute a few innocent people in order to ensure that fewer guilty ones ever go free. (See above in this post)  But I'm not.  And that is just about all I have to say.

Thanks to everyone.  There has been a lot of really thoughtful comment here, and I appreciate your stimulating argument.

Good night. 

 

[Rayman]

All I have to say is what about that guy who killed Holly Jones? Michael Briere or what not. Hes supposedly able to get parole in 25 years. Karla Hamolka? Isnt she a free woman today WHILE Paul Bernardo still rots behind bars? If they dont want to bring back capital punishment they need to at least give life sententances to these people and stick with them. No chance for parole. Lots of people may claim the death penalty is harsh, savage, and out dated. Though im sure those SAME people will agree that s***heads who do these severe offences should just be locked up and the key lost down a floor drain. Not allowed back out sometime later.

 

[Roy Harding]

All I have to say is what about that guy who killed Holly Jones? Michael Briere or what not. Hes supposedly able to get parole in 25 years. Karla Hamolka? Isnt she a free woman today WHILE Paul Bernardo still rots behind bars? If they dont want to bring back capital punishment they need to at least give life sententances to these people and stick with them. No chance for parole. Lots of people may claim the death penalty is harsh, savage, and out dated. Though im sure those SAME people will agree that s***heads who do these severe offences should just be locked up and the key lost down a floor drain. Not allowed back out sometime later.

Karla Holmolka cut a deal - perhaps a bad deal (from the point of view of the public) - but nevertheless, a deal (which, despite my personal misgivings, I think the government needs to honour). 

Paul remains in custody.  What the eventual disposition of his case may be is pure speculation.

As a proponent for the death penalty - I find your self inclusion on my side of the debate disturbing. 

We aren't talking about lunatic reaction here.  The ill-informed, fanatical lynchings you appear to support aren't welcomed by me - we're discussing the extremely (perhaps ultimately)  serious subject of a state abrogating to itself the right to take the life of one of its' citizens - hardly a subject for uninformed rhetoric.

 

[Roy Harding]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108

I meant to express my thanks for this link earlier - but failed to do so.

Thank you for a most interesting link - I'm still reading.

More to follow.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I'm quite prepared to pay my taxes and have these guys rot in prison for the rest of their lives.  Let's give more resources to the police and the courts, and let's make the law stick (ie no more automatic bail, parole etc without very strict criteria).

Yeah, that's great to say, but you know that won't happen.  A life sentence isn't life.  Hell, it is rarely even 25 years anymore. 
You want to burn tax dollars?  How about double the number of jails in Canada?  That might be a good expense. 

In the United States decades ago, white mobs who lynched negroes were absolutely convinced they had got the rapist, murderer etc.  I've seen footage of the mobs at those lynchings, and believe me, the sound and the look was no different from what was waiting for Guy Paul Morin when he made his court appearances.

You are a journalist, and you still use that word?  A PAFFO no less? 

 

[Rayman]

Karla Holmolka cut a deal - perhaps a bad deal (from the point of view of the public) - but nevertheless, a deal (which, despite my personal misgivings, I think the government needs to honour). 

Paul remains in custody.  What the eventual disposition of his case may be is pure speculation.

As a proponent for the death penalty - I find your self inclusion on my side of the debate disturbing. 

We aren't talking about lunatic reaction here.  The ill-informed, fanatical lynchings you appear to support aren't welcomed by me - we're discussing the extremely (perhaps ultimately)  serious subject of a state abrogating to itself the right to take the life of one of its' citizens - hardly a subject for uninformed rhetoric.

First of all I dont support the death penalty. Secondly the point im stating is that its ridiculous that they allow parole and such to some of these people who are serving a life sentance, or should be. I DO BELIEVE that when they hand down a sentance of life that it be for the said term. Either way, im sure there is one thing that YOU and I can BOTH agree on is that if someone commits a serious offence that warrants either the death penalty or life sentancing that whoever it is should not be allowed years later (be they the guilty party) to have a chance to go back into society. Since not all people are for the death penalty, and it may very well be decided that it may not be re-instated, that at least life sentancing should not carry the option of parole at a later date.

 

[Greymatters]

I find it appaling that the only good argument as to whether the death sentence is right or not is based on 'cost', but if thats how some want to compare it, fine.  Then consider this:

The anti-death sentence proponents are very quick to bring up how much a death sentence review (and a poorly run one at that) costs taxpayers.  It only shows how the system is being milked for what should be a simple process.  But the same people fail to compare this cost against how much it costs to house, feed, and provide entertainment, medical services, and other support for the same inmate over a 25 year period.  $475,000 is bloody cheap compared to the caretaking costs which goes into the millions.  If you want to argue cost, its cheaper to execute than maintain indefinately.

Next argument please...

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Since not all people are for the death penalty, and it may very well be decided that it may not be re-instated, that at least life sentancing should not carry the option of parole at a later date.

That would require that someone admit that the concept of rehabilitation is a joke.  It isn't very hard to spot people who have a chance at changing vs. gearboxes that are career criminals/too dangerous to be allowed out without an explosive radio collar. 

 

[Bane]

Greymatters,
      Cost is not the only argument, but it is one of them.  Inmates are typically only executed after a large number of years, in a sense the system pays for 'both' methods if capital punishment is to be used. Of course this delay time I would imagine would differ between jurisdictions.  Because of the nature of the punishment a different process for appeals is typical (more rigorous, in some cases mandatory) and a minimum elapsed time between sentencing and execution is, from what I know, common.  From the small amount that I have read about this, in the U.S. capital punishment is on par more expensive than straight incarceration.  I don't claim exhaustive knowledge on this matter and I'm sure it's different for different jurisdictions. 
          Making the cost argument is relatively easy to argue compared to getting at the fundamental moral issues. Which, as you alluded to, is of vastly greater importance.  But don't assume that because a person states an argument against capital punishment on the grounds of cost that they don't have more to their argument.  Writing a specific, detailed and persuasive piece on the moral arguments of capital punishment is time consuming.  Made all the more difficult in that most of us are not experts on this topic, thus we are all learning as we go, and the 'internet forum' is a place that it is sometimes challenging to get complex ideas across effectively.  I also have not heard many persuasive arguments on why capital punishment is required, it certainly has little affect as a deterrent. 

 

[tank recce]

You are a journalist, and you still use that word?  A PAFFO no less? 

Without peering into tonykeene's head, I suggest he may well have been using the mob's own term - they weren't lynching Afro-Americans, they were lynching negroes. They may have slurred the pronunciation a bit.

That said, is 'Negro' considered a loaded word, not for use in polite society? "Nigger" obviously is, despite it's continued use for shock value in the sub-culture most affected by the continued use of the term. If 'Negro' is, what about 'Caucasian'? If one, why not the other? (getting just a little off topic)

 

[zipperhead_cop]

it certainly has little affect as a deterrent. 

Executed criminals have an extremely low recidivism rate.  

How about, simply put by the venerable Wilfred Brimley, "it's the right thing to do"?  Cost is not even a legitmate argument.  This is Canada.  We live to waste money on useless things.  
And for that matter, why are we obliged to imitate the convoluted system the United States has?  Seems Japan has a pretty decent system, lots of time wasting appeals and such.  We could massage the actual execution procedure a bit to make the mushies feel better, but once the criminal's death warrant is signed, they require it to be acted on within six months.

(getting just a little off topic)

Very off topic.  I'm not going to start the dogpile.