<strong>Well giant put a link up for you. <a href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs2.html"; target="_blank">Here's another one.</a> It's not baseless propaganda. Death penalty cases have automatic appeals and a wider variety of potential bases for appeal than other cases, for obvious reasons.
But many of the death penalty advocates say we should cut back on all those appeals. I suppose it would be cheaper if we gave 'em a trial and then just executed them immediately after the trial.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The results of any trial could be appealed all the way up to the state Supreme Court of Appeals, or even the Circuit Court of Appeals for federal cases. It *is* propaganda.
The only difference is urgency. When you're given the death penalty, of course you're going to appeal. When you're given life imprisonment, there's almost the same amount of urgency, though it's a little more likely you'll spare your family the private legal fees.
giant's link didn't provide anything other than "A study said blah" and your link shows mostly the same. What both links do show are murder trials in general being much more expensive than other criminal cases.
Basically, these studies are telling us the cost of the entire process from investigation to execution costs a lot more than merely feeding and housing an inmate for life. Or are you to believe a criminal investigation of a murderer + trial and appeals + life imprisonment only costs taxpayers $600,000 just like giant's link says it does? Not a chance. Think about it for a second.
It would be a good idea in the future not to simplify things that you don't know about and use that model to form an opinion. You will be mistaken every time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And my suggestion to you is to use your brain and not blindly paste something from Amnesty International which probably came from somewhere else to begin with.
"It's propaganda" is a nice way to respond to two links, but I've yet to see any link that says the death penalty costs less in most situations than the cost of life imprisonment. I don't see how that's realistic anyway. The appeals process for death row convicts is mandatory and lengthy while that of appeals of those who were imprisoned for life just isn't.
<strong>"It's propaganda" is a nice way to respond to two links, but I've yet to see any link that says the death penalty costs less in most situations than the cost of life imprisonment. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Because any link designed around that single statement would also be propaganda. I'm encouraging individual rumination rather than "hey, this link from a [liberal|conservative] source says you are 100% wrong."
giant's link says it costs $3.2 million to execute a person in Florida. Is that the cost of execution or the entire criminal justice process? His link also says it only costs $600,000 to feed and house a person for the rest of his life. How much of the process does that include?
You make this claim, but it's just not true. Why did he put a moratorium on the death penalty? To save his own hide? No, because he knows that at least in Illinois, the death penalty was poorly implemented.
Since we all know and admit that here in Illinois the use and prosecution with the death penalty is poorly implemented, we also all know that commuting the sentences of those on death row was the right and just thing to do regardless of the case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would only be true if the guilt of everyone were in question or if every single prosecution were mishandled. That's not that case.
There is no reason for blanket immunity for everyone on death row. The processes of review was in place and the next governor was sure to take up the cause.
So then why would he do it? Try to be Mr Niceguy before the Feds get him. Or maybe he's hedging his bets if he ends up in prison himself. Make some friends before he gets there.
The damage he does to the public trust is overwhelming.
Carrying out death sentences doesn't seem very expensive at all, especially in the couple of states that still use low tech facilities like shooting ranges. They have several shooters. One gun is loaded with a blank so the shooters won't know for sure whether they shot the guy or not.
So by protecting the exectutors, it's being implicitly said there's something they need to be protected from. If it were really carrying out justice rather than just plain revenge, they should be proud to do it. Not need protection from the psychological ramifications. It's ridiculous that a civilized society would need to resort to this.
[quote]<strong>
Death row inmates are not used for prison labor, so they do not give back anything in any way.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So the obvious answer to this dilemma would be to take them off death row, would it not?
So by protecting the exectutors, it's being implicitly said there's something they need to be protected from. If it were really carrying out justice rather than just plain revenge, they should be proud to do it. Not need protection from the psychological ramifications. It's ridiculous that a civilized society would need to resort to this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think that's the only reason why it's done that way. It's CYA on all counts so you can't hold the shooters accountable in case something goes awry.
[quote]<strong>So the obvious answer to this dilemma would be to take them off death row, would it not?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, because most murderers who get life imprisonment also aren't used for prison labor.
It would be helpful if you would at least evaluate the facts before you make declarative statements such as "it is propaganda." You simply seem to demonstrate ignorance by this. Now, if you chose to not believe certain facts, that is fine, but it doesn't cause them to be false based on your rejection of reality.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that there are much better reasons to oppose the death penalty than the costs. However since that's where this has gone, I'll address them.
First of all, as to the cost of a life imprisonment: The average individual who gets life in prison: 29 The average life expectancy of that individual: 52 (23 years). It costs about 22K a year to keep a prisoner incarcerated. You can do the math. The average individual costs the state $600,000.
The average death row inmate sits on death row for approximately 9 years before execution. because of the separate facilities, and the hightened security - lower ratio of prisoners to facility, staff... the average individual on death row costs the state close to 50K to keep in prison.
Now, lets assume the initial cost of trial was the same (it's not). Right now, it costs the state $450K to keep a guy in prison and then the cost of executing him (approx $100,000 or more).
now the biggest difference is in fact in the appeals process. You are flat out wrong when you talk about everyone getting appeals. That's wrong. The average individual can only appeal if there was reversable error, or they were misrepresented. On average, that's approximately 8% of convicts. Did you know that being innocent isn't ground for appeal. Neither is someone else confessing to the crime.
The difference is that in a death penalty case, everyone gets automatic appeals. And they can go on for many years. In an ordinary appeal, you can file an appeal, but chances are good, it will quickly get thrown out.
It's a simple fact of reality that death penalty cases cost much more. But that's irrelevant. It's simply the wrong thing to do.
And if life imprisonment were to become the the most severe form of punishment in the justice system, it would also be subject to automatic appeals, wouldn't you think? You're assuming the entire sytem would just stay the same minus capital punishment. I doubt that would happen...there'd just be a shift and we'd be in the same financial pickle as before.
Like I said, I am against the death penalty, but telling everyone it costs roughly 1/5 the amount of money to imprison somebody for life vs executing them is not teling the truth. With the appeals process and time spent in jail for both death row inmates and lifers, I'd guess the cost difference is negligible.
I've been an attorney for over 20 years, and I currently work for the Attorney General's Office in the State of Michigan. By the way, we don't have the death penalty, and by the way, there is no automatic appeal in this state for anything.
It's just plain stupid to say that there would be automatic appeals for life imprisonment. It's not that you need an appeal because it's the harshest punishment, it's that once that punishment has been inflicted, it CANNOT be revoked. There is only an automatic appeals process because if you're going to take someone's life, you need to be absolutely sure that it's the right decision.
If you put someone in prison for life, and you make a mistake, you can correct it later by letting the person out. If you put them to death, that's no longer an option.
You may not be able to wrap your feable brain around the facts, but they still remain. The death penalty system costs more money than life imprisonment. It's simply the fact.
On a side note, SCOTT, the reason the commutation of sentance was issued in Illinois is because of the horrible disparity in the system there. Already at least 4 death row inmates were found to be innocent. They were pardoned. Many of the others had exhausted their appeals, but there was still serious doubt about the process in which they were convicted. Ryan knew that the incoming governor would lift the moratorium and some of those inmates would have been executed within weeks. The only way to prevent someone from wrongfully being sentanced to death was to convert their sentence. He did it because it was the right thing to do, and it was his right to do it.
First off, i'd like to say wow...this is a tough subject to tackle. Furthermore, i've seen more good opinions and points expressed here than i've heard from anywhere else i've been since Ryan's announcement. Must be from all of you owning a Mac. But this subject really did catch my attention, since I live in the southern part of Illinois.
Here are my views, not that they matter at all, but still I will post them.
1.) Ryan did a good thing for certain inmates. Unfortunately, he didn't take the time with his staff to go through the 160 some odd cases to investigate who deserved this and who was down right guilty. I agree with his successor, who I dare not attempt to butcher his name, that a "Blanket" anything is never the answer.
2.) Ryan did make a good point, paraphrasing his comment..."The death penalty does not do anything for the victim's families other than strike down revenge." I'm not saying that I personnaly am against the death penalty or for it, but I don't think that it is the answer to a lot of problems we face either.
3.) I think that it is sad, and I have been guilty of it as well before too, that we trivialize someone's life by how much it would cost to do it one way versus another. I think that each crime should fit each punishment, and the criminal's punishment, whether innocent of guilty for real, should not be weighed by his/her cash value to the government or it's people.
I hope I made enough sense there...i'm getting tired. Good night all.
My feeble brain still thinks the appeals process would go on and on for many cases where defendants would be given life without parole. They always appeal. The only time I've ever hear of convicted killers not having the right to appeal is when they plead guilty.
That would only be true if the guilt of everyone were in question or if every single prosecution were mishandled. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, because the integrity of every prosecution in this state is in question, every conviction is in question. Sentences are not given out equally for every race. That's been proven. There is no equality in this system. To support it is to support the persecution of minorities.
Eugene, perhaps you know something that none of us here on the bar in Michigan are aware of, however in order to appeal, you have to have some sort of reversable error. Meaning, there had to have been some sort of due process violation, misrepresentation, or other mistake by the judge. Short of these things, you aren't even garaunteed the right to appeal when someone else confesses to the crime. For that matter, it's even hard to get a conviction overturned with DNA evidence proving your innocence.
Sure, criminals can file appeals, no problem. But unless they have some merit, they get thrown out immediately.
You don't know what you're talking about it, so it would be much better if you didn't talk so much.
So are you saying the justice system is flawed? I'm certainly not comforted by these facts. And why does a one type of conviction merit less attention to detail than the other? Morality suggests everyone sentenced to whatever punishment should get the same right of appeal, in my mind anyway.
But I'm sure glad I know proof of innocence doesn't necessarily grant me that right. I'm glad there's no human error possible in the whole process... The system is perfect. I guess it makes more sense to put potentially innocent people in prison for the rest of their years because it's a better fiscal option than giving them a real chance at an appeal.
The system of conviction is different because , there is one thing irreversible in life : death.
I think it will be difficult to refuse soemone the right to make appeal if his penalty is death. However you are right Eugene to point out that the system should be the same for each conviction. There is only one way to make this, remove the death penalty.
Every system of justice has his own internal logic. The important point is that this internal logic, follow at best the moral and real life.
<strong>The system of conviction is different because , there is one thing irreversible in life : death.
I think it will be difficult to refuse soemone the right to make appeal if his penalty is death. However you are right Eugene to point out that the system should be the same for each conviction. There is only one way to make this, remove the death penalty.
Every system of justice has his own internal logic. The important point is that this internal logic, follow at best the moral and real life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The system should be consistent. It's flawed beyond belief. I don't know about you but I think it's a problem when DNA evidence or someone else's confession doesn't give you a real chance at an appeal.
Time is irreversible unless you're into Sci-Fi. Anybody in prison presumed guilty, but innocent loses time...
And because of what? Since he's not in danger of being executed his innocence is not important?
The system should be consistent. It's flawed beyond belief. I don't know about you but I think it's a problem when DNA evidence or someone else's confession doesn't give you a real chance at an appeal.
Time is irreversible unless you're into Sci-Fi. Anybody in prison presumed guilty, but innocent loses time...
And because of what? Since he's not in danger of being executed his innocence is not important?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Time is certainly important, and i would hate to spent years in prison for nothing, my life would be destroyed, but i could make a new one (the old one would be certainly destroyed forever). If you are dead it's the end of everything.
In minor process in france you have nearly automatically the right to appeal, but for crimes, there is a jury ( i have been elected in a list in 1994, but luckily have never been called to participate). In case of appeal, the next trial is made in front of three judges without jury. In order to make appeal new proofs or informations are needed. Because Justice prefer the jury upon the judges in case of major crimes. Decisions by the jury means that the decisions are made by the republic and not by the judges. But jury is a random selection of people guided by the jugde, not necessary suited for this important task, so in case of a second process, it's better to have a jury of professional.
In short it's complicated, because justice is built upon humans decisions and thus subject to failure.
Comments
<strong>Well giant put a link up for you. <a href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs2.html"; target="_blank">Here's another one.</a> It's not baseless propaganda. Death penalty cases have automatic appeals and a wider variety of potential bases for appeal than other cases, for obvious reasons.
But many of the death penalty advocates say we should cut back on all those appeals. I suppose it would be cheaper if we gave 'em a trial and then just executed them immediately after the trial.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The results of any trial could be appealed all the way up to the state Supreme Court of Appeals, or even the Circuit Court of Appeals for federal cases. It *is* propaganda.
The only difference is urgency. When you're given the death penalty, of course you're going to appeal. When you're given life imprisonment, there's almost the same amount of urgency, though it's a little more likely you'll spare your family the private legal fees.
giant's link didn't provide anything other than "A study said blah" and your link shows mostly the same. What both links do show are murder trials in general being much more expensive than other criminal cases.
Basically, these studies are telling us the cost of the entire process from investigation to execution costs a lot more than merely feeding and housing an inmate for life. Or are you to believe a criminal investigation of a murderer + trial and appeals + life imprisonment only costs taxpayers $600,000 just like giant's link says it does? Not a chance. Think about it for a second.
Like I said, it's propaganda.
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>
It would be a good idea in the future not to simplify things that you don't know about and use that model to form an opinion. You will be mistaken every time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And my suggestion to you is to use your brain and not blindly paste something from Amnesty International which probably came from somewhere else to begin with.
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>"It's propaganda" is a nice way to respond to two links, but I've yet to see any link that says the death penalty costs less in most situations than the cost of life imprisonment.
Because any link designed around that single statement would also be propaganda. I'm encouraging individual rumination rather than "hey, this link from a [liberal|conservative] source says you are 100% wrong."
giant's link says it costs $3.2 million to execute a person in Florida. Is that the cost of execution or the entire criminal justice process? His link also says it only costs $600,000 to feed and house a person for the rest of his life. How much of the process does that include?
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>
You make this claim, but it's just not true. Why did he put a moratorium on the death penalty? To save his own hide? No, because he knows that at least in Illinois, the death penalty was poorly implemented.
Since we all know and admit that here in Illinois the use and prosecution with the death penalty is poorly implemented, we also all know that commuting the sentences of those on death row was the right and just thing to do regardless of the case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would only be true if the guilt of everyone were in question or if every single prosecution were mishandled. That's not that case.
There is no reason for blanket immunity for everyone on death row. The processes of review was in place and the next governor was sure to take up the cause.
So then why would he do it? Try to be Mr Niceguy before the Feds get him. Or maybe he's hedging his bets if he ends up in prison himself. Make some friends before he gets there.
The damage he does to the public trust is overwhelming.
<strong>
Carrying out death sentences doesn't seem very expensive at all, especially in the couple of states that still use low tech facilities like shooting ranges. They have several shooters. One gun is loaded with a blank so the shooters won't know for sure whether they shot the guy or not.
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, what a nice gesture!
So by protecting the exectutors, it's being implicitly said there's something they need to be protected from. If it were really carrying out justice rather than just plain revenge, they should be proud to do it. Not need protection from the psychological ramifications. It's ridiculous that a civilized society would need to resort to this.
[quote]<strong>
Death row inmates are not used for prison labor, so they do not give back anything in any way.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So the obvious answer to this dilemma would be to take them off death row, would it not?
<strong>
Wow, what a nice gesture!
So by protecting the exectutors, it's being implicitly said there's something they need to be protected from. If it were really carrying out justice rather than just plain revenge, they should be proud to do it. Not need protection from the psychological ramifications. It's ridiculous that a civilized society would need to resort to this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think that's the only reason why it's done that way. It's CYA on all counts so you can't hold the shooters accountable in case something goes awry.
[quote]<strong>So the obvious answer to this dilemma would be to take them off death row, would it not?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, because most murderers who get life imprisonment also aren't used for prison labor.
It would be helpful if you would at least evaluate the facts before you make declarative statements such as "it is propaganda." You simply seem to demonstrate ignorance by this. Now, if you chose to not believe certain facts, that is fine, but it doesn't cause them to be false based on your rejection of reality.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that there are much better reasons to oppose the death penalty than the costs. However since that's where this has gone, I'll address them.
First of all, as to the cost of a life imprisonment: The average individual who gets life in prison: 29 The average life expectancy of that individual: 52 (23 years). It costs about 22K a year to keep a prisoner incarcerated. You can do the math. The average individual costs the state $600,000.
The average death row inmate sits on death row for approximately 9 years before execution. because of the separate facilities, and the hightened security - lower ratio of prisoners to facility, staff... the average individual on death row costs the state close to 50K to keep in prison.
Now, lets assume the initial cost of trial was the same (it's not). Right now, it costs the state $450K to keep a guy in prison and then the cost of executing him (approx $100,000 or more).
now the biggest difference is in fact in the appeals process. You are flat out wrong when you talk about everyone getting appeals. That's wrong. The average individual can only appeal if there was reversable error, or they were misrepresented. On average, that's approximately 8% of convicts. Did you know that being innocent isn't ground for appeal. Neither is someone else confessing to the crime.
The difference is that in a death penalty case, everyone gets automatic appeals. And they can go on for many years. In an ordinary appeal, you can file an appeal, but chances are good, it will quickly get thrown out.
It's a simple fact of reality that death penalty cases cost much more. But that's irrelevant. It's simply the wrong thing to do.
Like I said, I am against the death penalty, but telling everyone it costs roughly 1/5 the amount of money to imprison somebody for life vs executing them is not teling the truth. With the appeals process and time spent in jail for both death row inmates and lifers, I'd guess the cost difference is negligible.
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I've been an attorney for over 20 years, and I currently work for the Attorney General's Office in the State of Michigan. By the way, we don't have the death penalty, and by the way, there is no automatic appeal in this state for anything.
It's just plain stupid to say that there would be automatic appeals for life imprisonment. It's not that you need an appeal because it's the harshest punishment, it's that once that punishment has been inflicted, it CANNOT be revoked. There is only an automatic appeals process because if you're going to take someone's life, you need to be absolutely sure that it's the right decision.
If you put someone in prison for life, and you make a mistake, you can correct it later by letting the person out. If you put them to death, that's no longer an option.
You may not be able to wrap your feable brain around the facts, but they still remain. The death penalty system costs more money than life imprisonment. It's simply the fact.
On a side note, SCOTT, the reason the commutation of sentance was issued in Illinois is because of the horrible disparity in the system there. Already at least 4 death row inmates were found to be innocent. They were pardoned. Many of the others had exhausted their appeals, but there was still serious doubt about the process in which they were convicted. Ryan knew that the incoming governor would lift the moratorium and some of those inmates would have been executed within weeks. The only way to prevent someone from wrongfully being sentanced to death was to convert their sentence. He did it because it was the right thing to do, and it was his right to do it.
Here are my views, not that they matter at all, but still I will post them.
1.) Ryan did a good thing for certain inmates. Unfortunately, he didn't take the time with his staff to go through the 160 some odd cases to investigate who deserved this and who was down right guilty. I agree with his successor, who I dare not attempt to butcher his name, that a "Blanket" anything is never the answer.
2.) Ryan did make a good point, paraphrasing his comment..."The death penalty does not do anything for the victim's families other than strike down revenge." I'm not saying that I personnaly am against the death penalty or for it, but I don't think that it is the answer to a lot of problems we face either.
3.) I think that it is sad, and I have been guilty of it as well before too, that we trivialize someone's life by how much it would cost to do it one way versus another. I think that each crime should fit each punishment, and the criminal's punishment, whether innocent of guilty for real, should not be weighed by his/her cash value to the government or it's people.
I hope I made enough sense there...i'm getting tired.
a "Blanket" anything is never the answer.
<hr></blockquote>
HAHAHAHA!!! The irony is killing me!
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>
That would only be true if the guilt of everyone were in question or if every single prosecution were mishandled. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, because the integrity of every prosecution in this state is in question, every conviction is in question. Sentences are not given out equally for every race. That's been proven. There is no equality in this system. To support it is to support the persecution of minorities.
Sure, criminals can file appeals, no problem. But unless they have some merit, they get thrown out immediately.
You don't know what you're talking about it, so it would be much better if you didn't talk so much.
But I'm sure glad I know proof of innocence doesn't necessarily grant me that right. I'm glad there's no human error possible in the whole process... The system is perfect. I guess it makes more sense to put potentially innocent people in prison for the rest of their years because it's a better fiscal option than giving them a real chance at an appeal.
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I think it will be difficult to refuse soemone the right to make appeal if his penalty is death. However you are right Eugene to point out that the system should be the same for each conviction. There is only one way to make this, remove the death penalty.
Every system of justice has his own internal logic. The important point is that this internal logic, follow at best the moral and real life.
<strong>The system of conviction is different because , there is one thing irreversible in life : death.
I think it will be difficult to refuse soemone the right to make appeal if his penalty is death. However you are right Eugene to point out that the system should be the same for each conviction. There is only one way to make this, remove the death penalty.
Every system of justice has his own internal logic. The important point is that this internal logic, follow at best the moral and real life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The system should be consistent. It's flawed beyond belief. I don't know about you but I think it's a problem when DNA evidence or someone else's confession doesn't give you a real chance at an appeal.
Time is irreversible unless you're into Sci-Fi. Anybody in prison presumed guilty, but innocent loses time...
And because of what? Since he's not in danger of being executed his innocence is not important?
<strong>
The system should be consistent. It's flawed beyond belief. I don't know about you but I think it's a problem when DNA evidence or someone else's confession doesn't give you a real chance at an appeal.
Time is irreversible unless you're into Sci-Fi. Anybody in prison presumed guilty, but innocent loses time...
And because of what? Since he's not in danger of being executed his innocence is not important?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Time is certainly important, and i would hate to spent years in prison for nothing, my life would be destroyed, but i could make a new one (the old one would be certainly destroyed forever). If you are dead it's the end of everything.
In minor process in france you have nearly automatically the right to appeal, but for crimes, there is a jury ( i have been elected in a list in 1994, but luckily have never been called to participate). In case of appeal, the next trial is made in front of three judges without jury. In order to make appeal new proofs or informations are needed. Because Justice prefer the jury upon the judges in case of major crimes. Decisions by the jury means that the decisions are made by the republic and not by the judges. But jury is a random selection of people guided by the jugde, not necessary suited for this important task, so in case of a second process, it's better to have a jury of professional.
In short it's complicated, because justice is built upon humans decisions and thus subject to failure.
That's why we need robots with laser beams.