<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Jun 30 2005, 02:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Jun 30 2005, 02:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Our rate of accuracy in putting people to death is actually pretty good--its really rare for an innocent man to be put to death. In fact, I get the impression that basically, the bigger the crime, the harder it is to be convicted of it. IE, someone who actually murdered someone has a pretty good chance of getting off, while someone who goes to court for a traffic ticket is almost certainly going to be convicted even if he's actually innocent. (Barring lost paperwork...) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This brings up an interesting point. Yes, there are very few people put to death who were completely exonerated after the fact. However, it is more common that something comes up that requires further consideration: a new witness approaches, new evidence, or even it was discovered that a police officer planted or covered up existing evidence. Although the convict would not be declared completely innocent, the severity of his crime might be less than previously thought.
I don't think it works. And I don't like the idea of taking a life, for any reason. So, I personally am <i>against</i> it. However, people continue to commit crimes and slapping everyone in jail doesn't seem like a real solution, either.
So, it doesn't bother me that our government uses it. It's their call, not mine.
I was waiting for someone to bring up the topic of innocents being convicted... My personal problem with capital punishment is that it's something that you can't take back, oops, sorry, we killed you... well, *shrug*. I would like to think that the justice system is near perfect and will always get the right guy, but it doesn't. There's been many individuals released from death row because new evidence had cleared them.
<b>From Blackstone to Bentham: Why Wrongful Conviction Is On The Rise by Paul Craig Roberts</b> <a href='http://www.truthinjustice.org/ontherise.htm' target='_blank'>(Source)</a> <!--QuoteBegin-Craig Roberts+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Craig Roberts)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The death penalty debate was renewed last year when Republican Gov. George Ryan of Illinois imposed a moratorium on capital punishment. Gov. Ryan's confidence in murder convictions was shaken when he found that there were more innocent than guilty parties on death row. Of 25 condemned murderers, 12 were executed and 13 on death row were cleared of capital-murder charges.
...
The death penalty was politicized for the November presidential election by the Chicago Tribune's investigation of 131 executions in Texas since Bush became governor. According to the Tribune, many of the cases "were compromised by unreliable evidence," bad lawyering and unethical prosecutors. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The article contains tons of other good examples of the failure of the justice system.
Now, I understand that many will bring up other cases that if we ditch capital punishment that:
1. They will kill again. 2. They will be released too early. 3. Too expensive to imprison them.
However, these are strawman arguments. There are ways to combat all three without capital punishment. There have been cases where deathrow inmates have brutally killed guards and so on. As terrible as these things are, there are a plethora of other options that would have prevented the guard's death. (Why was the guard alone? Why wasnt the criminal handcuffed? etc.) These things cannot be attributed to a lack of capital punishment and it would be incorrect to do so.
It's a very commonly quoted statistic--although I admit I haven't seen the original source material either. But if its not more money, its at least very close.
Consider this--In most states, once a person is convicted and sentenced to death, it takes 10-20 years to actually execute them. So for that period of time, you are spending money to keep them in jail, just as you would if they had been sentenced to life in prison. In addition, you are spending huge sums of money on legal expenses, as they go through 50 million appeals processes on every conceivable aspect of the trial that they can think of. And after all that, you've got <i>at best</i> a 50-50 chance of actually getting to perform the execution. If they wind up being released on some technicality, all of that money is wasted. Or worse, if they then have their sentence commuted to life--now you've spent millions on the death penalty legal fees <i>and</i> have to pay to imprison them for life.
The Death Penalty is absurdly expensive in this country...
It's not that I don't think it's possible, or that I want to disagree with the statistic (It would support my case if it did), but until I see a source, I can't believe it outright : /
Well a quick google search comes up with uber amounts of anti-capital punishment sites.. and very little for. So take these with a grain of salt, especially the first three, as they are very much against it. (I'll write something a bit better later when I have more time.)
<a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Capital+Punishment+economics' target='_blank'>Google for Capital Punishment Economics</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Sirus+Jul 2 2005, 08:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Jul 2 2005, 08:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd have to see a source before I believed that Antrel : )<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> One intersting perspective on <a href='http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/cappun.htm' target='_blank'>The Cost of Capital Punishment (8/14/02)</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Every major cost study has shown capital punishment to be more expensive than an alternative system where life-imprisonment is the maximum sentence. To see why, note that only a small fraction of the cases that start out as capital trials actually result in a death sentence, and only about 10% of those death sentences result in an execution. The 784 inmates executed (as of June 26th, 2002) since 1976 are only a fraction of the roughly 7,000 death sentences in that time, which sprang from an even larger number of trials. Yet, all of these cases were more expensive from the beginning, regardless of their final outcome, because they began as capital trials. Death penalty trials are more expensive than ordinary murder trials. They entail more pre-trial preparation time, more attorneys, longer jury selections, more expert witnesses, and a heightened level of due process. They are 3 to 5 times longer, and the defendant is less likely to simply plead guilty to avoid a trial if there is a chance of being executed.
Considering the small percentage of executions that result, these expenses are a burden on the justice system. Yet, doing away with them without also getting rid of capital punishment would be unwise. Since 1976, over 100 people have been released from death row based on newly discovered evidence of their innocence - almost 13% of the number executed!
According to Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., the most comprehensive cost study was published by Duke University researchers in 1993. This two-year study determined North Carolina's capital cases cost at least an extra $2.16 million per execution, compared to what taxpayers would have spent if defendants were tried without the death penalty and sentenced to life in prison. Applying those figures nationally would mean $1.69 billion were spent on the 784 executions carried out nationwide since 1976 (in 1993 dollars).
Some county governments have neared bankruptcy to fund their capital trials. In Sierra County, California, authorities had to cut police services in 1988 to pay for the cost of pursuing death penalty prosecutions. In another case of wasted money, over 500 New Jersey police officers were laid off in 1991, while the state spent $16 million on the death penalty - more than enough to hire 500 officers at a salary of $30,000 each. In Texas, prisoners were serving only one-fifth of their sentences in the early 1990s, due to prison overcrowding, while the state spent $183 million over six years on executions.
What do taxpayers get in return? The evidence is overwhelming that capital punishment is no more effective in deterring murder than is life imprisonment. The millions of dollars squandered on executing prisoners do nothing to keep our streets safe, and are an affront to every underfunded measure that can actually make a difference, such as community policing, drug rehabilitation programs, longer sentences, and after school programs. Police chiefs across the country ranked the death penalty as least effective among ways to prevent violent crime, in a 1995 national poll. As the death row population continues to increase, so does the overall cost of capital punishment.
Recent national news has been encouraging. A Federal judge in Washington, D.C. declared the federal death penalty unconstitutional in a case before him. The Supreme Court declared the execution of mentally retarded persons unconstitutional. The New York City Council voted for a moratorium on the death penalty, joining similar motions by other municipal governments. Capital punishment's fairness, accuracy, cruelty, due process, and cost have all been questioned. Let us hope the momentum will continue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
edited July 2005
Capital punishment has one guaranteed effect.
<span style='color:yellow'>It promotes the killing of another human being as a valid methodology to solve problems.</span>
Most of the other points have room for some debate. The above does not.
If someone can explain to me how making the execution of another person acceptable discourages people from making that value decision themselves, then I'm all ears.
Every time the state sanctions killing, then they are promoting the use of violence as a problem solving tool. In a modern society, one would have thought anyone with the most cusory understanding of human behaviour would realise that this will only increase the amount of violence in society.
Frankly, we should be looking towards reducing the amount of punishment and violence inherent in the system, not increasing it. That such fairly transparent aspects of human psychology and societal modelling need explaining worries me far more than the tiny proportion of people who are murdered.
At the end of the day, the thinking that killing someone can be justified to further one's aims forms the core of what is worrying the rest of the world about the United States of America.
Addendum: Most of the people executed in America are black. From this are we meant to take:
a) Blacks are inherently violent
b) Blacks are too stupid to realise they might be executed if they murder someone
c) Whites don't commit murder
d) Blacks are perhaps the victims of socio-economic degradation
I'll let the Republicans answer this. I enjoy watching people defend inherently racist ideologies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Addendum: Most of the people executed in America are black. From this are we meant to take:
a) Blacks are inherently violent
b) Blacks are too stupid to realise they might be executed if they murder someone
c) Whites don't commit murder
d) Blacks are perhaps the victims of socio-economic degradation
I'll let the Republicans answer this. I enjoy watching people defend inherently racist ideologies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is a really shallow assumption. Along with your assumption that Republicans are racists. Lets analyze this:
<i>a) Blacks are inherently violent</i>
Its more like poor people are more likely to commit crimes. With a overall increased crime rate, come an increased violent crime rate. It is unfortunate that social factors make it hard for urban blacks to break the poverty cycle. Poverty is, however, not an excuse to commit the type of crime that will get you the death sentence.
<i>b) Blacks are too stupid to realise they might be executed if the murder someone</i> You cannot honestly believe that someone wakes up and thinks, "Im goint to murder someone, I wonder what the consequences are?" Black or white, if you are going to commit a murder the last thing on your mind is the consequences. You either dont care about the consequences or you are planning on not getting caught.
<i>c) Whites don't commit murder</i>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Yes you are completely right, Republicans are soo dumb that they honestly believe whites do not commit murder. They simply ignore all that nonsense on their republican news channel "Fox News" about the two recent child molesters that commited murder, and are dead set on it being some black guy. I mean seriously, how do you deduce this from there being more blacks on death row?
<i>d) Blacks are perhaps the victims of socio-economic degradation</i>
Yes both social conditions and economic conditions probably contribute to the facts that more blacks are on death row than whites. Does that make them victims?
Justice is blind, we should not look at skin color and make adjustments to our rulings because someone is black or white. Should we keep in mind economic backgroud? It might me a good thing, depending on the nature of the crime. I would find it interesting to see a map showing where the death penalty is enforced and an overlay showing where criminals who recieved the death penalty commited their crime.
As far as being for or against the death penalty. Everytime I start to think the death penalty is not such a good idea, some guy like this Joseph Duncan guy comes around and makes me change my mind. Other than that, I think their should be not doubt on guilt before handing down the big D. It should only really apply to repeat offenders and those who commit really horrible crimes.
Let's get back on topic, and not turn this into a racial discussion <b>UNLESS</b> you are quoting sources regarding it. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jul 4 2005, 10:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jul 4 2005, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let's get back on topic, and not turn this into a racial discussion <b>UNLESS</b> you are quoting sources regarding it. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> please dont! i hate reading frikken qoutes its so, wrong.
please commend on each others statements instead PLEASE
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A study headed by Columbia University statistician and political scientist Andrew Gelman of all 5,826 death sentences imposed in the United States between 1973 and 1995 found that 68 per cent were reversed on appeal. (<a href='http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20050706/pl_nm/crime_death_dc' target='_blank'>link</a>)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The study appears <a href='http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/jels.pdf' target='_blank'>here</a>, with the following from the abstract:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We collected data on the appeals process for all death sentences in U.S. states between 1973 and 1995. The reversal rate was high, with an estimated chance of at least two-thirds that any death sentence would be overturned by a state or federal appeals court.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From the look of things, even the author of the paper is not entirely sure if the successful appeals are more likely to save the innocent or let the guilty escape.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Jul 2 2005, 08:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Jul 2 2005, 08:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And after all that, you've got <i>at best</i> a 50-50 chance of actually getting to perform the execution. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Looks like I get to revise my numbers...
"After all that, you've only got about a 1 in 3 chance of actually getting to perform the execution."
Even more expensive. But, being expensive isn't an argument against the death penalty in general, only our current inefficient death penalty system. In another, more efficient system, where that huge monetary expenditure could be reduced, the death penalty would be a lot more viable.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Jul 6 2005, 05:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Jul 6 2005, 05:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Jul 2 2005, 08:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Jul 2 2005, 08:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And after all that, you've got <i>at best</i> a 50-50 chance of actually getting to perform the execution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Looks like I get to revise my numbers...
"After all that, you've only got about a 1 in 3 chance of actually getting to perform the execution."
Even more expensive. But, being expensive isn't an argument against the death penalty in general, only our current inefficient death penalty system. In another, more efficient system, where that huge monetary expenditure could be reduced, the death penalty would be a lot more viable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And how would you propose to make the current capital punishment system/s more efficient?
The better question for me is "What would you change?" To which I have already pondered upon and have integrated into Xzianthia:
<i>Death penalties usually are given post mortem for self-defense or war. The DLP (the Department of Legal Protection) is a government law group for the entire federation and investigator firm which works with the police not just to control people cruel treatment to animal or each other but also to protect prisoners from cruel treatment. Some times you have lawyers from the DLP working both the defense and prosecution. If you use your right to an attorney because you cannot hire a private one you will have one appointed for you from the DLP. The DLP second function is to ensure protection against cruelty against the environment, in the workplace, even in the prisons.
Life sentence prisoners can opt for a death sentence which is reviewed by the death sentence courts. Law requires that prisoners asking for a death penalty much be reviewed by a credited physician to see if there are any means of dissuading the individual. (ie: the criminal just got in prison and is extremely depressed and just wants to die) Therapy must be offered, but not forced to the individual. If the prisoner remains resolute (ie: they wish to restore their honor) then the courts will grant the penalty. The prisoner may choose their means of death within reason (determined by the judge), since it is illegal to kill a restrained being the usual means is only via the same penalty for Kaliam
Under special circumstances given for murders and that can be proven are a blatant contempt for life, commitment to evil, and present serious risk to harm society again. Such cases (called Kaliams) are only handled by a special division of the supreme courts. Those courts must be able and willing to make an unbiased decision even if to return an unpopular rejection to the death penalty, proven innocent of Kaliam. The death penalty courts are the only place where the double jeopardy rule does not apply, instead a triple jeopardy law is applied and the delays and restriction for reopening such a case must be sufficient as sufficient is set by case law precedent. It should be noted that if a Kaliam convict escapes from prison they have a death warrant. (meaning anyone and everyone can kill them with no consequence, in fact if you do kill the convict you receive honor and recognition)</i>
Now here's where it gets interesting!
<i>When a individual is proven evil enough to be convicted of Kaliam there is only one method of capital punishment. It is illegal and shameful in the Federation to execute a being. (execute in Xzianthia means a person is restrained and unable to fight back when they are killed) Kaliam convicts receive the death sentence through deathmatch only. The judge always decides how unbalanced the deathmatch will be and discusses it with the families or representatives of the victims. (usu. the murder vs. the victims' families) If private combatants are hired it is illegal and highly despised by the public, bringing dishonor and shame to the family. (it's shameful because it shows cowardice and because it pays with money)
However sometimes there are no family of the victims or are unable to fight; this is not shameful and usually members of the military will volunteer (always with nothing in return less they dishonor themselves) to put their lives on the line to avenge the victims. The opportunity is jumped at no because of desire for fame or bloodlust (which would be dishonorable), but rather purely for the sake of doing the right thing for honor. Usually if the Defender of Xzianthia (the head of the XESF) is going to be the representative for the victims it's just him/her against several convicts. Usually, when the Defender of Xzianthia is going to fight all of the Kaliam convicts try to find some legal excuse why they should be in that fight. Deathmatches are held in only one place, a special stadium everyone refers to as "the Arena." </i>
<u>Now some history:</u>
<i>The most famous match of all was a terrible disaster where innocent civilians died but also caught a live battle between good and evil and showed how good the heroes of the Federation really were at defending her and saving lives. The match was between the so called "Bloody 5" a notorious group of elite assassins who had been an elusive bunch of Nha Si'Marat agents well known for their murdering of children and war crimes to which they were directly responsible for close to a full million deaths, and they fought against the Defender of Xzianthia and the Queen of Xzianthia. The fight was the first time civilians or really anybody had a good chance to see their heroes in action. Little did anybody know Bloody 5 had an ace in the hole and teleported in an enemy battalion. Chaos ensued, but the Defender and the Queen worked with the brave soldier who jumped into harms way to find an destroy all of the enemy and save the lives of their people. Fortunately, though there where hundreds thousands watching the event in the Arena clever and brave sacrifices saved all but 178 people. While it was a horrible disaster it could have been far, far worse. The footage caught on live television of the battle and how the Defender and the Queen used their powers to save lives became the most famed and popular of all video known so far with no equal.</i>
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This brings up an interesting point. Yes, there are very few people put to death who were completely exonerated after the fact. However, it is more common that something comes up that requires further consideration: a new witness approaches, new evidence, or even it was discovered that a police officer planted or covered up existing evidence. Although the convict would not be declared completely innocent, the severity of his crime might be less than previously thought.
So, it doesn't bother me that our government uses it. It's their call, not mine.
~ DarkATi
My personal problem with capital punishment is that it's something that you can't take back, oops, sorry, we killed you... well, *shrug*. I would like to think that the justice system is near perfect and will always get the right guy, but it doesn't. There's been many individuals released from death row because new evidence had cleared them.
<b>From Blackstone to Bentham: Why Wrongful Conviction Is On The Rise
by Paul Craig Roberts</b>
<a href='http://www.truthinjustice.org/ontherise.htm' target='_blank'>(Source)</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Craig Roberts+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Craig Roberts)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The death penalty debate was renewed last year when Republican Gov. George Ryan of Illinois imposed a moratorium on capital punishment. Gov. Ryan's confidence in murder convictions was shaken when he found that there were more innocent than guilty parties on death row. Of 25 condemned murderers, 12 were executed and 13 on death row were cleared of capital-murder charges.
...
The death penalty was politicized for the November presidential election by the Chicago Tribune's investigation of 131 executions in Texas since Bush became governor. According to the Tribune, many of the cases "were compromised by unreliable evidence," bad lawyering and unethical prosecutors. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The article contains tons of other good examples of the failure of the justice system.
Now, I understand that many will bring up other cases that if we ditch capital punishment that:
1. They will kill again.
2. They will be released too early.
3. Too expensive to imprison them.
However, these are strawman arguments. There are ways to combat all three without capital punishment. There have been cases where deathrow inmates have brutally killed guards and so on. As terrible as these things are, there are a plethora of other options that would have prevented the guard's death. (Why was the guard alone? Why wasnt the criminal handcuffed? etc.) These things cannot be attributed to a lack of capital punishment and it would be incorrect to do so.
Consider this--In most states, once a person is convicted and sentenced to death, it takes 10-20 years to actually execute them. So for that period of time, you are spending money to keep them in jail, just as you would if they had been sentenced to life in prison. In addition, you are spending huge sums of money on legal expenses, as they go through 50 million appeals processes on every conceivable aspect of the trial that they can think of. And after all that, you've got <i>at best</i> a 50-50 chance of actually getting to perform the execution. If they wind up being released on some technicality, all of that money is wasted. Or worse, if they then have their sentence commuted to life--now you've spent millions on the death penalty legal fees <i>and</i> have to pay to imprison them for life.
The Death Penalty is absurdly expensive in this country...
<a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Capital+Punishment+economics' target='_blank'>Google for Capital Punishment Economics</a>
One intersting perspective on <a href='http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/cappun.htm' target='_blank'>The Cost of Capital Punishment (8/14/02)</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Every major cost study has shown capital punishment to be more expensive than an alternative system where life-imprisonment is the maximum sentence. To see why, note that only a small fraction of the cases that start out as capital trials actually result in a death sentence, and only about 10% of those death sentences result in an execution. The 784 inmates executed (as of June 26th, 2002) since 1976 are only a fraction of the roughly 7,000 death sentences in that time, which sprang from an even larger number of trials.
Yet, all of these cases were more expensive from the beginning, regardless of their final outcome, because they began as capital trials. Death penalty trials are more expensive than ordinary murder trials. They entail more pre-trial preparation time, more attorneys, longer jury selections, more expert witnesses, and a heightened level of due process. They are 3 to 5 times longer, and the defendant is less likely to simply plead guilty to avoid a trial if there is a chance of being executed.
Considering the small percentage of executions that result, these expenses are a burden on the justice system. Yet, doing away with them without also getting rid of capital punishment would be unwise. Since 1976, over 100 people have been released from death row based on newly discovered evidence of their innocence - almost 13% of the number executed!
According to Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., the most comprehensive cost study was published by Duke University researchers in 1993. This two-year study determined North Carolina's capital cases cost at least an extra $2.16 million per execution, compared to what taxpayers would have spent if defendants were tried without the death penalty and sentenced to life in prison. Applying those figures nationally would mean $1.69 billion were spent on the 784 executions carried out nationwide since 1976 (in 1993 dollars).
Some county governments have neared bankruptcy to fund their capital trials. In Sierra County, California, authorities had to cut police services in 1988 to pay for the cost of pursuing death penalty prosecutions. In another case of wasted money, over 500 New Jersey police officers were laid off in 1991, while the state spent $16 million on the death penalty - more than enough to hire 500 officers at a salary of $30,000 each. In Texas, prisoners were serving only one-fifth of their sentences in the early 1990s, due to prison overcrowding, while the state spent $183 million over six years on executions.
What do taxpayers get in return? The evidence is overwhelming that capital punishment is no more effective in deterring murder than is life imprisonment. The millions of dollars squandered on executing prisoners do nothing to keep our streets safe, and are an affront to every underfunded measure that can actually make a difference, such as community policing, drug rehabilitation programs, longer sentences, and after school programs. Police chiefs across the country ranked the death penalty as least effective among ways to prevent violent crime, in a 1995 national poll. As the death row population continues to increase, so does the overall cost of capital punishment.
Recent national news has been encouraging. A Federal judge in Washington, D.C. declared the federal death penalty unconstitutional in a case before him. The Supreme Court declared the execution of mentally retarded persons unconstitutional. The New York City Council voted for a moratorium on the death penalty, joining similar motions by other municipal governments. Capital punishment's fairness, accuracy, cruelty, due process, and cost have all been questioned. Let us hope the momentum will continue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:yellow'>It promotes the killing of another human being as a valid methodology to solve problems.</span>
Most of the other points have room for some debate. The above does not.
If someone can explain to me how making the execution of another person acceptable discourages people from making that value decision themselves, then I'm all ears.
Every time the state sanctions killing, then they are promoting the use of violence as a problem solving tool. In a modern society, one would have thought anyone with the most cusory understanding of human behaviour would realise that this will only increase the amount of violence in society.
Frankly, we should be looking towards reducing the amount of punishment and violence inherent in the system, not increasing it. That such fairly transparent aspects of human psychology and societal modelling need explaining worries me far more than the tiny proportion of people who are murdered.
At the end of the day, the thinking that killing someone can be justified to further one's aims forms the core of what is worrying the rest of the world about the United States of America.
Addendum: Most of the people executed in America are black. From this are we meant to take:
a) Blacks are inherently violent
b) Blacks are too stupid to realise they might be executed if they murder someone
c) Whites don't commit murder
d) Blacks are perhaps the victims of socio-economic degradation
I'll let the Republicans answer this. I enjoy watching people defend inherently racist ideologies.
Addendum: Most of the people executed in America are black. From this are we meant to take:
a) Blacks are inherently violent
b) Blacks are too stupid to realise they might be executed if they murder someone
c) Whites don't commit murder
d) Blacks are perhaps the victims of socio-economic degradation
I'll let the Republicans answer this. I enjoy watching people defend inherently racist ideologies.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is a really shallow assumption. Along with your assumption that Republicans are racists. Lets analyze this:
<i>a) Blacks are inherently violent</i>
Its more like poor people are more likely to commit crimes. With a overall increased crime rate, come an increased violent crime rate. It is unfortunate that social factors make it hard for urban blacks to break the poverty cycle. Poverty is, however, not an excuse to commit the type of crime that will get you the death sentence.
<i>b) Blacks are too stupid to realise they might be executed if the murder someone</i>
You cannot honestly believe that someone wakes up and thinks, "Im goint to murder someone, I wonder what the consequences are?" Black or white, if you are going to commit a murder the last thing on your mind is the consequences. You either dont care about the consequences or you are planning on not getting caught.
<i>c) Whites don't commit murder</i>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yes you are completely right, Republicans are soo dumb that they honestly believe whites do not commit murder. They simply ignore all that nonsense on their republican news channel "Fox News" about the two recent child molesters that commited murder, and are dead set on it being some black guy. I mean seriously, how do you deduce this from there being more blacks on death row?
<i>d) Blacks are perhaps the victims of socio-economic degradation</i>
Yes both social conditions and economic conditions probably contribute to the facts that more blacks are on death row than whites. Does that make them victims?
Justice is blind, we should not look at skin color and make adjustments to our rulings because someone is black or white. Should we keep in mind economic backgroud? It might me a good thing, depending on the nature of the crime. I would find it interesting to see a map showing where the death penalty is enforced and an overlay showing where criminals who recieved the death penalty commited their crime.
As far as being for or against the death penalty. Everytime I start to think the death penalty is not such a good idea, some guy like this Joseph Duncan guy comes around and makes me change my mind. Other than that, I think their should be not doubt on guilt before handing down the big D. It should only really apply to repeat offenders and those who commit really horrible crimes.
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> please dont! i hate reading frikken qoutes its so, wrong.
please commend on each others statements instead PLEASE
The study appears <a href='http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/jels.pdf' target='_blank'>here</a>, with the following from the abstract:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We collected data on the appeals process for all death sentences in
U.S. states between 1973 and 1995. The reversal rate was high, with
an estimated chance of at least two-thirds that any death sentence
would be overturned by a state or federal appeals court.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From the look of things, even the author of the paper is not entirely sure if the successful appeals are more likely to save the innocent or let the guilty escape.
Looks like I get to revise my numbers...
"After all that, you've only got about a 1 in 3 chance of actually getting to perform the execution."
Even more expensive. But, being expensive isn't an argument against the death penalty in general, only our current inefficient death penalty system. In another, more efficient system, where that huge monetary expenditure could be reduced, the death penalty would be a lot more viable.
Looks like I get to revise my numbers...
"After all that, you've only got about a 1 in 3 chance of actually getting to perform the execution."
Even more expensive. But, being expensive isn't an argument against the death penalty in general, only our current inefficient death penalty system. In another, more efficient system, where that huge monetary expenditure could be reduced, the death penalty would be a lot more viable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And how would you propose to make the current capital punishment system/s more efficient?
The answer for me is yes and no.
The better question for me is "What would you change?" To which I have already pondered upon and have integrated into Xzianthia:
<i>Death penalties usually are given post mortem for self-defense or war. The DLP (the Department of Legal Protection) is a government law group for the entire federation and investigator firm which works with the police not just to control people cruel treatment to animal or each other but also to protect prisoners from cruel treatment. Some times you have lawyers from the DLP working both the defense and prosecution. If you use your right to an attorney because you cannot hire a private one you will have one appointed for you from the DLP. The DLP second function is to ensure protection against cruelty against the environment, in the workplace, even in the prisons.
Life sentence prisoners can opt for a death sentence which is reviewed by the death sentence courts. Law requires that prisoners asking for a death penalty much be reviewed by a credited physician to see if there are any means of dissuading the individual. (ie: the criminal just got in prison and is extremely depressed and just wants to die) Therapy must be offered, but not forced to the individual. If the prisoner remains resolute (ie: they wish to restore their honor) then the courts will grant the penalty. The prisoner may choose their means of death within reason (determined by the judge), since it is illegal to kill a restrained being the usual means is only via the same penalty for Kaliam
Under special circumstances given for murders and that can be proven are a blatant contempt for life, commitment to evil, and present serious risk to harm society again. Such cases (called Kaliams) are only handled by a special division of the supreme courts. Those courts must be able and willing to make an unbiased decision even if to return an unpopular rejection to the death penalty, proven innocent of Kaliam. The death penalty courts are the only place where the double jeopardy rule does not apply, instead a triple jeopardy law is applied and the delays and restriction for reopening such a case must be sufficient as sufficient is set by case law precedent. It should be noted that if a Kaliam convict escapes from prison they have a death warrant. (meaning anyone and everyone can kill them with no consequence, in fact if you do kill the convict you receive honor and recognition)</i>
Now here's where it gets interesting!
<i>When a individual is proven evil enough to be convicted of Kaliam there is only one method of capital punishment. It is illegal and shameful in the Federation to execute a being. (execute in Xzianthia means a person is restrained and unable to fight back when they are killed) Kaliam convicts receive the death sentence through deathmatch only. The judge always decides how unbalanced the deathmatch will be and discusses it with the families or representatives of the victims. (usu. the murder vs. the victims' families) If private combatants are hired it is illegal and highly despised by the public, bringing dishonor and shame to the family. (it's shameful because it shows cowardice and because it pays with money)
However sometimes there are no family of the victims or are unable to fight; this is not shameful and usually members of the military will volunteer (always with nothing in return less they dishonor themselves) to put their lives on the line to avenge the victims. The opportunity is jumped at no because of desire for fame or bloodlust (which would be dishonorable), but rather purely for the sake of doing the right thing for honor. Usually if the Defender of Xzianthia (the head of the XESF) is going to be the representative for the victims it's just him/her against several convicts. Usually, when the Defender of Xzianthia is going to fight all of the Kaliam convicts try to find some legal excuse why they should be in that fight. Deathmatches are held in only one place, a special stadium everyone refers to as "the Arena." </i>
<u>Now some history:</u>
<i>The most famous match of all was a terrible disaster where innocent civilians died but also caught a live battle between good and evil and showed how good the heroes of the Federation really were at defending her and saving lives. The match was between the so called "Bloody 5" a notorious group of elite assassins who had been an elusive bunch of Nha Si'Marat agents well known for their murdering of children and war crimes to which they were directly responsible for close to a full million deaths, and they fought against the Defender of Xzianthia and the Queen of Xzianthia. The fight was the first time civilians or really anybody had a good chance to see their heroes in action. Little did anybody know Bloody 5 had an ace in the hole and teleported in an enemy battalion. Chaos ensued, but the Defender and the Queen worked with the brave soldier who jumped into harms way to find an destroy all of the enemy and save the lives of their people. Fortunately, though there where hundreds thousands watching the event in the Arena clever and brave sacrifices saved all but 178 people. While it was a horrible disaster it could have been far, far worse. The footage caught on live television of the battle and how the Defender and the Queen used their powers to save lives became the most famed and popular of all video known so far with no equal.</i>