Originally posted by: Purgatory-Z
Originally posted by: MicroChrome
Have you figured out how much it cost to execute someone? I wonder if there are any breaks... Say, lethal injections vs. electric chair?
Do we have to pay for barrel? Can they get a request to be cremated? I'm know they get a last super. I sometimes wonder what it is we really pay for these services. I still think an inmate is treated better then the average elder citizens on medicate. Etc...Etc...
Actually, it costs significantly more to execute someone than to give them life without parole. Here's the url discussing it:
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
Here's a great article on the death penalty, probably been posted by someone already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty
Interesting point of note is that most countries that one would consider more advanced, more civilized, have completely abolished the death penalty.
Ahh, see there's the problem. If you read those links, the exhorbitant costs is in the endless cycle of appeals and legal proceedings, i.e Lawyers Fees.
The death penalty cases should have an express lane with only 3 exits before termination: the first trial (strike one), 90 days later they get an Appeal. If the outcome of that appeal is an affirmation of the first verdict (guilty), then he goes straight to the chair within another 90 days - front of the line, NO WAITING. If that 1st Appeal contradicts the original verdict, then a 2nd Appeal is used. Ultimately, its a 2-out-of-3 proposition. All appeals are no more than 90 days apart, meaning that it is theoretically possible to have the execution done and over with inside of 180 days from the original conviction.
Why do I advocate this? A couple of reasons ...
1) Deterrent effect. Right now the death penalty has almost no deterrent effect because the criminals know it takes DECADES to get it done and thave an unholy number of appeals, etc. If a criminal knew ahead of time that he/she could be dead within 6 months if he commits the crime, he'd think alot more before doing it.
2) Reduced cost. The number of appeals and legal wranglings that go on for years costs a FORTUNE (see links above). I do not advocate wasting resources on people who have obviously decided that they don't want to play by the rules of a civilized society.
Now some of you will say "oh but legalized murder is civilized?" As a matter of fact, yes. A law-abiding society has the right to remove those who do not wish to play by the rules. That removal can either be temporary (jail time or "time out"), or if the violation is severe enough it can be permanent (death or exile but that isn't practiced any more since there isn't anywhere to send them). That same society has the obligation to make sure that the process is quick, accurate, and at a minimal cost, since those resources could be better used to benefit the society as a whole.
As for "redemption" in the religous sense. MANY criminals find "god" while in prison. Why? Because it sucks in jail. Lack of freedom, lousy amenities, getting beat up, or sexually used by Big Ed, King of Cell Block 8. Allowing criminals to go free or to not pay their full debt to society because they found "god" should NEVER be permitted. Given the way many religous bleeding-hearts respond, I can guarantee you that I would profess the ultimate religious conversion if it would get me out of jail, so why shouldn't they? Once they get out of paying their full debt, they can giggle all the way back to their old life and go right on violating the rest of us. The simple fact is that they are human beings who committed crimes against society in the HERE and NOW. Whatever afterlife they've decided on believing in has absolutely no bearing on the HERE and NOW under which they are being punished.
Why am I so opposed to considering some sort of religious salvation as a redeeming quality worthy of consideration?
Because religion and human government should NEVER mix like that. Whatever religious belief one has or manages to acquire while in prison is a PERSONAL thing, with no connection to the original crime or stated punishment for committing said crime. The commission of that crime is also a PERSONAL choice, knowing that if caught they would have to pay that price.
Ever wonder where spoiled children come from? Ever seen how spoiled children behave when they get punished by their parents? Finally, ever seen said spoiled children get out of their punishment when they act all apologetic and remorseful? If you've seen that in action, you're seeing the result of it in a society where a murderous thug like Tookie Williams can get out of paying the ultimate price by being all apologetic, remorseful, and suddenly religously-minded once he's in prison and facing the death penalty.
Is he truly guilty of the crime he was convicted for? I have no idea. But he is the self-admitted creator and leader of the Crips, so he is by definition partly responsible for all the robbery, rape, murder, assaults, vandalism, and sundry other crimes committed by the Crips. For that alone he should cook in his own juices ...