The death penalty - Deterent, tax payers burden or vengance ?

With the readying of the death chamber for Americas 1000th victim (do they deserve to be called victims ?, im not sure.) since 1977 again maybe we should take a look at the death penalty and its efficiency as a deterent.

Albert pierpoint was the gueens hangman in England and Ireland for more than 20 years and his son followed in his shoes, but after retiring, he became a fierce OPPONENT of the death penalty, stating that -
"In all the years i have had as executioner, i am deeply convinced that the death penalty never detered anyone from commiting murder".

The words of a man who, after taking so many lives in the name of justice , found that he was really wasting his time and the fear of death REALLY WASNT A DETERENT.

Since 1983 the bill for the tax payer in New Jersey has risen to 253 million dollars on state executions..so much money on a deterent that doesnt work - is it worth it ?
A 1993 Duke university study showed that a death penalty trial cost on average 2.16 million dollars more than a conventional trail and that executions are 3 to 6 times more costly than life imprisonment and
the state of New mexico stated it would save between 1 and 2.5 million dollars yearly if the death sentance was replaced with an alternative.

Since its reinstatment in 1976 the United States is the only western country to have and use the death sentance.

Do the cases like that of Derek bently, (hanged in England in 1953 for his part in the murder of a policeman by his 16 year old accomplice who was too young to hang so Bently, who was 19 , hung in his place even thiugh he didnt pull the trigger) and his subsequent pardon in 1998 tell us anything...

Even though all the evidence in the case pointed to his innocence the crown and more importantly the wife of the the dead police officer wanted blood, revenge, and with the execution of an innocent man, who had the mental age of 11, it served to feed the anger and need for vengance of a nation.

45 years later he was pardoned postumostly- a little late dont you think ?

Since 1973, 117 people have been freed from death row after evidence was found to free them..6 such cases happened in 2004.
The causes are always the same, police misconducted, unreliable witnessess, inadequate defence, evidence etc..
59 people where executed in 2004, and there are currently more than 3400 awaiting the death penalty as of January 2005.

We have to ask, before the discovery of DNA, how many innocent men and women went to the chair or the lethal injection or the rope and where innocent ??

Therefore i ask you - in a country that has an average of 16.137 murders a year, does the death penalty serve justice or does it serve the human need for revenge as clearly it DOES NOT SERVE as a deterent in any way, shape or form.

I don't think it's a deterant. I have seen no proof that it's a deterant.

It may be vengence. I don't mind people seeking vengence.
I know ... I know .. 'Vengence is Mine sayeth the Lord'
Don't bother quoting that to me. I don't care.

Supposedly it costs more to execute someone than to keep them
alive for the rest of their lives behind bars. I don't think I believe
that. Someone has to post some facts for me to see on that.

The only thing I can say about the death penalty is that I think
it's wrong simply because our justice system stinks and so many
guilty folks get off, and so many innocent get locked up .... I hate to
think of how many innocent people have probably been put
to death. Also ... I don't think we have a right to put people to
death unless it's in self defense.

That's just how I feel.

...... naw.... the drugs used only cost about $35.00. What costs is the litigation of all the appeals.

Remember... when someone does something for which execution is the penalty, he is agreeing to the execution, and that the possibility of his gain is worth the risk; the state is merely carrying out the sentence.

Revenge??? BS!

I remember reading reports on how the death sentence actually costs states much much more in the end.

On some of the articles I was reading it put a life-imprisonment cost at around $300,000-$400,000 USD (off the top of my head) and the cost to put someone to death (after years of inprisonment, after years of appeals and appeals) it costs around $1.4m USD.

I have to go to work now, but I will see if I can find the articles and post links for you when I get home.

My personal view on the death sentence is, that it's wrong. its based on the old 'eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' mentality and I just think its too out-dated in this modern society. I would really like to think we have moved beyond the most basic of revengefull instincts and can be the bigger person when these kind of things come to trial.. but I guess not. I fear it isn't going anywhere, in alot of places, for quite some time.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I don't think it's a deterant. I have seen no proof that it's a deterant.

It may be vengence. I don't mind people seeking vengence.
I know ... I know .. 'Vengence is Mine sayeth the Lord'
Don't bother quoting that to me. I don't care.

The only way we'd know if it's a deterent is if those who changed their mind about a crime came forward and admitted it was the reason.
Our justice system isn't perfect, but it better than whatever comes in second.

As I mention in my post, the criminal agrees that his crime might bring hims gains worth the risk, so he (she) is the one who agrees to the execution, and the state(s) carry out the sentence.

The death penalty is more of a deterent than, say..... a free lifetime subscription to the local cable channel... which they get anyway, in prison. Well... it's not free...the taxpayers pay for it.

mod edit: shorten quote

[edit on 29-11-2005 by sanctum]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Supposedly it costs more to execute someone than to keep them
alive for the rest of their lives behind bars. I don't think I believe
that. Someone has to post some facts for me to see on that.

Fair bit of info at this site about the costs involved:
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

For example of one case study:

Kansas Study Concludes Death Penalty is Costly Policy

# The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.
# The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).
# The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.
# The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.
# Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Fair bit of info at this site about the costs involved:
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

Good find. Thanks.

Honestly, if it is about revenge ... I understand that and I don't mind.
If it's about detering future crime ... I don't think the stats hold that up.
If it's about clearing out space for more criminals because the system
is overcrowded with them ... I can understand that.

But for me, I feel we shouldn't be putting people to death unless
it's in self defense. That's a personal feeling and I can't show stats
or anything else to explain it.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Honestly, if it is about revenge ... I understand that and I don't mind.

Didn't your parents teach you that two wrongs, don't make a right?

But then all 'justice' really is is 'revenge'

Why not just shoot them in the head and burn the bodies?

[/sarcasm]


Yes I have nothing constructive to add here. Sorry.

I support the death penalty, what I don't support is the way that it is used. It has become a political tool and is not applied fairly. Anyone who questions this just has to look at the DC Sniper case. I don't remember the specifics but I do know that the Justice Department chose the location of their first trial based on that state's laws giving them the best chance for a death penalty conviction.
As far as people on Death Row being found innocent look at how cases are tried in the US. The office of District Attorney is an entry level position for those seeking higher political office. How many politicians brag about their conviction rate while they were District Attorneys. One of the best tricks is to get a conviction that they know will be overturned by a higher court. The idea behind it is that with the amount of time it takes to get an appeal heard the prosecutor has already moved on and the problem is now somebody else's. How many times have you heard about the DA deciding not to retry someone because there was an error made during their trial?

I do not believe in life imprisonment without parole. To me that is cruel and inhumane even more than a death sentence.

The death penalty would be a great deterrent if it were applied to every single convicted murderer. The problem is it's not applied enough.

It's not vengeance. Is locking someone up for stealing vengeance? No, it's justice.

As paradoxical as this may sound, it's because human life is valuable that whoever decides to kill someone needs to pay with their own life. Having a murderer serve a few years and letting them go cheapens life, especially that of their victim.

Yes, there may be a slight risk that an innocent person might die. I'm more than willing to take that risk. You risk your life every day when you drive, which is why you should drive defensively and minimize your risks. So the same should apply here--require DNA testing, do everything you can to make sure that you have the right person.

The death penalty is the only known reasonable way to put a price on the value of life.
Those who kill people have years worth of appeals as to what they did, while thew victims have no recourse at all.

Revenge?.... not hardly. As mentioned before, anyone who commits a crime, knowing the penalty, if convicted, could be death, it is THEY who agree to the terms, and feel that the possible gains (if any) justify the risk. They bring about their (possible) death, and "the state" merely carries it out.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Fair bit of info at this site about the costs involved:
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

Good find. Thanks.

Honestly, if it is about revenge ... I understand that and I don't mind.
If it's about detering future crime ... I don't think the stats hold that up.
If it's about clearing out space for more criminals because the system
is overcrowded with them ... I can understand that.

But for me, I feel we shouldn't be putting people to death unless
it's in self defense. That's a personal feeling and I can't show stats
or anything else to explain it.

Statistics from an anti-death penalty site are not exactly fair and balanced.

Death Penelty is a complicated issue.

A couple of things that concern me about it are:

Besides the U.S., Singapore, and Taiwan there isnt much first world support, pretty much all the other countries that practice the death penalty aren't exactly good company.

Not positve about this one but I think the US hasn't executed anyone under the age of 18 since 1990 (or longer) but it is still an option for us. Execution of those aged under age 18 has occurred in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Iran since 1990.

TheUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which among other things forbids capital punishment for juveniles, has been signed and ratified by all countries except the USA and Somalia (Somalia at the present time is unable to ratify), that is pretty sad.

Lastly once an innocent person is executed (which has happened) the executors lose credibility.

Shouldnt the US catch up with the rest of the first world?

Originally posted by Bandar Paul
Death Penelty is a complicated issue.

A couple of things that concern me about it are:

Besides the U.S., Singapore, and Taiwan there isnt much first world support, pretty much all the other countries that practice the death penalty aren't exactly good company.

Not positve about this one but I think the US hasn't executed anyone under the age of 18 since 1990 (or longer) but it is still an option for us. Execution of those aged under age 18 has occurred in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Iran since 1990.

TheUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which among other things forbids capital punishment for juveniles, has been signed and ratified by all countries except the USA and Somalia (Somalia at the present time is unable to ratify), that is pretty sad.

Lastly once an innocent person is executed (which has happened) the executors lose credibility.

Shouldnt the US catch up with the rest of the first world?

Some things about the UN's "rights of the child" may sound good, but most of it is just plain terrible. Why would the U.S. go along with a treaty where a child (who, as a child, knows nothing) can sue his/her parents if they make them go to church... or if they restrict their friends to those the parents feel are decent kids?

As an aside, every single one of the treaties the U.S. has with the U.N are moot; our constitution does not allow a treaty with an organization... only countries. That would be like signing a treaty with the Elks Club.

Why would the U.S. lower itself to "catch up" to the level of the "rest of the world"?

No other country offers it's people as many appeals, in an effort to make sure the party is indeed guilty. We led the world in offering DNA as an effort to make sure those found guilty are indeed guilty of the crime as charged.

Originally posted by zappafan1



No other country offers it's people as many appeals, in an effort to make sure the party is indeed guilty. We led the world in offering DNA as an effort to make sure those found guilty are indeed guilty of the crime as charged.

As for as a childs right to sue their parents over freedom of religion, I cant find anyhting like that in The U.N. Rights of a Child.
Here is the treaty www.canadiancrc.com...

I think you are referring to Article 14, which states
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

I can think of some Muslim nations who have signed the treaty and dont in any way follow that. I agree that these treaties are somewhat useless, but thought it should be brought up that the U.S. hasn't signed something, which the rest of the world has agreed on, similar to the Kyoto Treaty but that is another thread.

As for your assumption that no other nation has as many appeal processes as the US. I cant think of any other but dont know how many other nations exist, but dont the executioners lose credibility when an innocent person (which has happened) is executed?

Originally posted by Bandar Paul
I agree that these treaties are somewhat useless, but thought it should be brought up that the U.S. hasn't signed something, which the rest of the world has agreed on, similar to the Kyoto Treaty but that is another thread.

It's useless... So we didn't sign it.

Originally posted by Bandar Paul

Originally posted by zappafan1



No other country offers it's people as many appeals, in an effort to make sure the party is indeed guilty. We led the world in offering DNA as an effort to make sure those found guilty are indeed guilty of the crime as charged.

As for as a childs right to sue their parents over freedom of religion, I cant find anyhting like that in The U.N. Rights of a Child.
Here is the treaty www.canadiancrc.com...

I think you are referring to Article 14, which states
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

I can think of some Muslim nations who have signed the treaty and dont in any way follow that. I agree that these treaties are somewhat useless, but thought it should be brought up that the U.S. hasn't signed something, which the rest of the world has agreed on, similar to the Kyoto Treaty but that is another thread.

As for your assumption that no other nation has as many appeal processes as the US. I cant think of any other but dont know how many other nations exist, but dont the executioners lose credibility when an innocent person (which has happened) is executed?

It has taken technology to progress to make every effort to assure that the execution of innocents does not happen. I believe that America will continue to excell in that effort. Unfortunately, the prison system has evolved from a means of keeping the guilty out of society, to a very large industry. Again, the states merely carry out the sentence that the 'guilty' person imposes on him/herself.

Sure we will continue to excel but the process will never be 100% acurate. Dont want to change this thread but what is the christian view on all this. Im not a christian and never understood why they aren't against the death penalty, especially if the convictred repent? Love to hear an answer on that if anybody knows.

What about this Tookie Williams guy in California. I think the gov will grant him clemency. The death penalty seems so outdated to me, what purpose does it serve? I saw throw them in a cell and let them rot, why give them the easy way out?

..... I can't help but wonder how many of those opposed to the death penalty are pro-abortion? Just curious.... but a statistic that will never be "polled", investigated or publicized.