An Eye for an Eye
Discussion
ClassicMotorNut said:
TheHeretic said:
How much do you think it would cost to get someone from sentencing to execution?
Not as much as it would cost to keep them alive for up to 60 years (or more).TheHeretic said:
ClassicMotorNut said:
TheHeretic said:
How much do you think it would cost to get someone from sentencing to execution?
Not as much as it would cost to keep them alive for up to 60 years (or more).
k up, you can't reanimate them.ClassicMotorNut said:
I am, actually.
So no chance to correct any wrongful convictions (of which there have been many) on appeal, until it's too late?Birmingham Six? Sally Clark? Barry George?
EDIT: And, perhaps my main argument is this. What if *you* found yourself facing a death sentence because of a wrongful conviction. I know if it were me, I'd want every opportunity to prove my innocence, rather than be marched immediately out the back...
Edited by Jimbo. on Monday 8th April 18:15
ClassicMotorNut said:
I am, actually.
Really?http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf
factsheet said:
• In Maryland, an average death penalty case resulting in a death sentence costs approximately $3 million. The eventual
costs to Maryland taxpayers for cases pursued 1978-1999 will be $186 million. Five executions have resulted. (Urban
Institute, 2008).
• In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of
incarceration. (Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003).
• Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida [b] $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers
with life in prison without parole [/b]. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost
of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000).
• The most comprehensive study in the country found that [b] the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per
execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment [/b]. The majority of those costs occur at the trial
level. (Duke University, May 1993).
• In Texas, a [b]death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a
single cell at the highest security level for 40 years[/b]. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).
Assuming you have a source backing you up, worst case scenario we could say is that the costs to legally kill someone *might* be broadly comparable to incarcerating them for the rest of their natural lives. Which it probably wouldn't anyone as the cost of running a death penalty system (outside of the legal costs) is massive and unless youre advocating Chinese or Iranian levels of prisoner culling, we wouldn't get anywhere near the (still very bad) economies of scale of even the US.costs to Maryland taxpayers for cases pursued 1978-1999 will be $186 million. Five executions have resulted. (Urban
Institute, 2008).
• In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of
incarceration. (Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003).
• Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida [b] $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers
with life in prison without parole [/b]. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost
of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000).
• The most comprehensive study in the country found that [b] the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per
execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment [/b]. The majority of those costs occur at the trial
level. (Duke University, May 1993).
• In Texas, a [b]death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a
single cell at the highest security level for 40 years[/b]. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).
And *even* if *hypothetically* it cost say £5M more per year to gaol a few people for life rather than kill them, that's about 17p per working person in the UK per year i.e. completely irrelevant on any scale that might possibly affect our country in any way
ETA: not sure why the bold text in the last 2 bullet points above isn't working
ClassicMotorNut said:
I would opt fo b). It makes sense to me to kill those whom we know to be guilty and imprison those whom we are almost certain are guilty but I see no sense in killing everyone who is guilty and everyone who is innocent as well.
Brilliant. Tell you what, I'll come and burgle your house, and when I get caught and convicted I'll only get 1 year for doing it as I'm normally very good but had an off day so they'll only be 90% sure I did it. If only they were 95% sure I did it then they could give me 2 years, which is still a shame because if they were absolutely 100% sure they could have given me 3 years as being *really sure* that I committed the crime as opposed to just sure enough to convict me *definitely* changes the past and makes the crime worse thus deserving of a harsher punishment than before. Oh, and by the way, it turns out that they did think I was 100% guilty and gave me three years (had more of an off day than I thought)....until my mate Dave confessed that he'd actually fitted me up for it and they found his DNA on the key to your Porsche that he'd nicked on the way out. So it turns out that actually I'm innocent and get to have my conviction quashed, woohoo! But since the legal system is perfect and doesn't make mistakes they're going to make me serve the rest of my 3 year sentence for the burglary I didn't commit anyway.
Yes, variable sentences based on how guilty you think someone is are a great idea, you should definitely take that to your local MP/magistrate/lawyer and see how far you get.
Edited by Mario149 on Wednesday 10th April 06:22
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff