Hot Polling Action #34

what happens when we die but if we park our imaginations, our superstitions and our religious dogma for the moment, cold logic will tell us that nothing happens, that we are nothing more than hunks of meat, carbon based life forms who live our short lives and dream our silly dreams before turning back into atoms, molecules, dust, clay, dirt, or whatever you want to call it. Of course if you want to choose to believe that you will go to paradise and have 72 virgins at your disposal, or that you will sprout little wings on your back, fly around pink clouds, and play the harp, who knows, maybe you will.

Death penalty should not be abolished. If there is such a thing as "Paradise" after death, at least I'm not letting them live off of the money that I work for. Haha.

You rock my face. Thank you.

Something about the appeals process costing quite a bit more than just caging the convicted.

So long as the right people are making the money. Funny how the lawyers work it so they get a million dollars every time somebody dies. It's the silver lining.

I've heard it's cheaper to kill a mouse than buy one of those cages with the wheel inside.

I've heard the "blue shot" is not humane. It doesn't keep one from feeling the pain, just from showing that they're feeling the pain.

cost should be a factor on what boils down to a moral issue. I bet it's cheaper to knock off the homeless than feed them, or even just ship them to another country. But we don't say it's too expensive to deal with the issue, instead we try to find a way to make it work because that's the moral thing to do.

The same should go for convicted murderers. We need to decide across the board if our goal is to punish or rehab, and then stick to it. Even if punishment is the purpose, we need to figure out if executing anyone is morally correct, then act accordingly.

The "blue shot" is actually a pretty penny, which is why we need to enact a firing squad like Oregon. :)

If it costs much more than what a veterinarian charges for essentially the same job, then I bet the bullets would cost a pretty penny too.

Then shouldn't we err on the side of caution? If we can't reasonably conclude if execution is moral because we can't reasonably conclude what is moral, perhaps we shouldn't be executing people.

Doesn't seem like such an archaic and primitive system system anymore, does it?

IT doesn't deter crime

[link]

It costs more than life in prison

[link]

It's applied unfairly to those who are too poor to hire effective lawyers and/or have been discriminated against because of their race.

And, it's been used to kill innocent people who were later cleared by DNA evidence

[link]

I just love the logic- it is illegal to kill, therefore I will kill you. Fucking retarded. And if the argument is deterrence, we know that obviously doesn't work so what the fuck. I can't believe people even try to make an argument for capital punishment. It never ceases to astound me.

That talks about people who were freed on death row, and the people who were executed before they could be cleared.

[link]

Once again, let's prioritize issues and worry about non-convicted Americans keeping their fucking jobs as opposed to if we might hurt someone's feelings on death row.

What do you mean by that?

So, what if someone killed one of your family members...and because you are against the death penalty, they serve life in prison...it's ok for your money to be spent on them??? FOR THEM TO LIVE?

And life is prison

is proven to deter crime more than the death penalty?

That's the punishment side. And at least if the sentence was in error that person can be released.

Many inmates who led unstable lives seek prison for, at the very least, the shelter and stability it provides. Wouldn't it be an incentive for those to rot in prison for life if they had a place to sleep and three (albeit shitty) meals a day?

yes. good god people, why does money matter so much?

It costs more than life in prison

[link]

/10441pub19971231.html][link]

I fail to see how that link you provided clearly demonstrates how capital punishment costs more, it's just a bunch of split arguments.

...to me where housing and feeding a criminal is "good"? Please.

you just answered your own question to "good god people why does money matter so much?" Right? So we can freaking share it!!! Obviously!

I'm so impressed!

Several government and research group studies over the years (New York, 1982, Florida, 1988, Maryland, date unknown, Texas, date unknown, and so on, you're smart, I'm sure you can look them up) have concluded that the death penalty is actually much more expensive than life in prison. The cost in a state that does a lot of executions, like Texas or Florida, is typically $2-3M more per death penalty case than life imprisonment case, and that includes the cost of lifetime imprisonment. In states that don't do many executions, the additional cost is higher, due to underutilized death row facilities, underutilized death chambers, and so on, since these have a fixed capital cost for construction whether you use them or not. I'm sure it's possible to cherry pick data and show that it's cheaper, but all studies I've read which derive their data from broad sweeps of real world data show higher costs, and this only makes sense. What's more expensive, a prison guard or a lawyer? How many more lawyers are you going to need to prosecute a capital case? Add to this that incarceration in a typical state pen runs about $30K per person per year, up to $60K for maximum security, and in excess of $90K for death row, and the costs really start mounting.

You really need to refresh your data if you think it's cheaper. Oh sure, if you wanted to have low standards of proof for courts, minimal legal representation, and a quick and cheap execution by firing squad, I'm sure it could be cheaper. But, if you want those things, go ahead and move to Saudi Arabia or China, or some such place. They do executions cheap and in volume there.

[Point out]

..to me where housing and feeding a criminal is "good"? Please.

The "good" is that the criminal is separated from society, such that more people will not be harmed. The different types of sentences (death, imprisonment, banishment, whatever) are different means of achieving that good, each with their advantages and disadvantages.

...Sloppy. I didn't think of it that way. But that still gives them the opportunity to think for themselves, when they shouldn't even have that right. And it gives them the chance to find a way out of there. Some people just suck at keeping the prisoners in!

It's clear from your sentence structure and wording that you're some young kid, barely out of highschool, probably. I, on the other hand, am a silverbacked alpha male in my prime. And that, is relevant, as you will soon find out.

First off, what the hell does the economy have to do with changes in cost structure for criminal cases? And, since it's before you were born, I'll excuse you on having no clue that the economy in 82 was pretty sucky, and barely rising off the stagflation conditions of the late 70s, which were far worse economic times than now.

Second, you want recent? Here you go: [link]

June 2007 study by the US Federal court system finding that the median cost of conducting an authorized capital offense case (meaning they were authorized to seek the death penalty) was seven times higher than the median cost of conducting a non-authorized capital offense case (one in which the death penalty could be sought, but prosecutors decided not to). The difference, in dollar amount, is about $275K. They also found that only one in four authorized cases actually got the death penalty, so the added court costs per person actually receiving a death sentence is about $1.1M. That'll keep a guy in jail for a good long time.

As to the questions Sloppy raises... yes, they both use lawyers, but data from a variety of sources shows that 5-8 times as much legal resources go into a capital case than a non-capital case a number very consistent with the 7X increase in costs found in the above study.

Death row costs more per year since it's essentially a mini-"supermax" within a maximum security prison.

No response to the facts? You asked for a recent study agreeing with my assertions, and I gave you one.

Well, I suppose I should apologize then if you're not actually some young kid. Perhaps you're just someone with the undeveloped mind and lack of real world experience one would expect in a 20 year old. How sad.

You're just showing that lack of real world understanding with your asinine suggestion, Fox. Do you really think that convicted murderers are just reflexive killers? That if you provided them with a weapon their first response would be to kill someone? That's truly stupid. Also, what the hell does the discredited idea of social darwinism have to do with anything being discussed? Or do you just like tossing out things that you think make you sound clever?

I never denied that I was a misanthropist.

Was directed towards Jonas.

Not feeling sorry for myself, but I'm paying to have the person that murdered my cousin, to live. Maybe I am vengeful. Or whatever. But I also understand what it's like to even have that thought in my mind that that person is eating and breathing and seeing things he shouldn't have anymore. I'd rather pay to have someone put to death, that did wrong, then to have them LIVE off of my money.

I can understand being angry at a murderer. I can understand thinking that it may make it somehow better, or more just, if that person is then deprived of his life. But, what's worse? A quick execution, or a long life deprived of any freedom? In the first case his life is simply thrown away, a moment of regret and panic, and then nothing. In the second, he has to sit through every second of his life, knowing that all the things that make life worth living are denied him. Oh sure, he still eats and breathes, but he has no self determination, he knows no moment when he's not watched or controlled. His life isn't drained out of him in one quick second, it's drained out one long tick of the clock after another, and in the end, he's just as dead, and he lost just as much of the experience of life as if he'd been executed, but he has to wait through it all.

And, Fox, I don't give a rat's ass about your misunderstandings of who I am or what my life is like. I don't "know what it feels like to be pigeonholed" because I'm not pigeonholed by you, or anyone else. I don't care what you think about me. Do you think that hurt my feelings? It didn't. I laughed about your stupid "lives in his mom's basement" ad hominem attack. I critiqued you purely on the piss poor arguments you put forth. My comments about your age were metaphor for the poor quality of your arguments. They were about at the level I'd expect from a sophomore. I put forth some data, you asked for a recent study, I gave you one, a well researched and solid one, and you ignored it, shifted into childish ad hominem attack mode and then accused me of inundating you with facts. If you didn't want them why did you ask? Hardly what I'd expect of someone who is well based in the facts of the issue and who took an initial point of pride in mentioning that they've debated it before. Also, in your "none, to someone like you" comment, you're again making assumptions that perhaps you shouldn't. How do you know that I'm not among the family or friends of a victim of a horrible crime? You don't. Quit making assumptions.

I don't assume that you're the only person who feels the way you do. In fact, I think the majority of Americans agree with you. However, that doesn't make it right. Justice should be impassionate. It shouldn't revolve around the feelings and anger of the families of victims. Sorry, but it shouldn't. It's in everyone's interest that expensive judicial and law enforcement resources be used to best effect, and if the data shows that pursuing capital punishment cases costs more, then this is a poor use of resources as a murder in jail for life is just a effectively taken out of circulation as if he were dead. You say let's think about the still living. I agree. We should use resources to bring other criminals to justice, to remove them from the streets and put them where they can no longer be a threat. This is a far more worthwhile use of resources. And, like I said in my response to Felix above, I don't see why life in prison with no chance of parole is in any way a lighter sentence than execution.

If you scroll up...there you go, all the way up to when you first entered this debate, I believe it was you who started the childish "ad hominem" attacking. The little cute comment about high school debate? For example, if you played Daddy Warbucks in your middle school's production of Annie, I'd imagine you'd know who the fucking director was many years later. Once again, I reiterate, that's all I was trying to say and you took offense to it like the sorry little bitch you are.

I absolutely think that someone who takes a life deserves to die. No, I wouldn't want to pay to help sustain a murderer's life, but the thing is, there's really no way to know in absolute terms that someone is truly the guilty party of such a heinous crime. Let's face it, witnesses of crimes are really not reliable sources. People tend to forget details instantly after experiencing any event. What about science condemning the defendant? Science is never 100% certain of anything. Say a DNA test gives a result saying that a person is 99% likely to have been the killer. Well what about that 1%? Sure it's more likely than not the person did commit the crime, but there's still a possiblity that the person didn't. And don't even get me started on how we decide who is on our juries.

We know from the past that innocent people have died on death row. That should never happen. I would rather pay for 100 murderers' meals than have 1 innocent person die for something they didn't do.

I don't know about Iraq, but I do know that that's how they do it in Saudi Arabia. If someone is convicted of murder, then the victim's family not only decides if the convicted gets to live, but if they choose for the person to die, then they also get to choose how. They can even go so far as replicating the way their family member had died. So if the murder used a vehicle to run someone over to death, then... well you get the picture. If the family does choose to let the murderer live, they can force the convicted to pay blood money, which is determined by how much the family thinks their lost member is worth. Women are considered worth less than men, but that's a different issue. It all sounds a little sick to me.

I think I might be reading this wrong.

"Those left standing,(the victors of the lead pipe debacle), can now be granted parole as a reward in proving their steadfastness to oppose the death penalty."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I interpreted what you said, Fox:

So if 20 men on death row are put in a room with a lead pipe, then the men actually guilty of murder will kill all the men who were actually wrongfully convicted of murder because real killers can't deny their murderous instincts. (I'm also guessing that I'm supposed to assume that innocent people are incapable of defending themselves in this scenario.) And as a reward for proving to society that the death penalty should be enforced, the murders who killed more innocent people with a lead pipe while in prison should be granted parole.

Please say it isn't so.