The death penalty

[Furious Grandmothers]

Wasn't it already mentioned that the death penalty wastes more money than life imprisonment?

how so? It totally depends on what methods you use for it. Hanging/firing squad is fairly economical.

Not referring to just the killing, which would cost as little as a noose and a trapdoor would cost. You have to account for all the costs involved in the legal process to actually make very very sure that you are executing a truly guilty person. These procedures are necessary and cannot practically be abolished. And they alone outweigh the accumulated costs of keeping someone behind bars.

[Drackonisa]

how so? It totally depends on what methods you use for it. Hanging/firing squad is fairly economical.

Not referring to just the killing, which would cost as little as a noose and a trapdoor would cost. You have to account for all the costs involved in the legal process to actually make very very sure that you are executing a truly guilty person. These procedures are necessary and cannot practically be abolished. And they alone outweigh the accumulated costs of keeping someone behind bars.

You mean the criminal investigations etc? But such costs are also applicable to convicting a person and sentencing him to jail. Besides, capital crimes which result in say life imprisonment is more expensive than hanging the scumbag's hide. Imagine paying for his food, lodging etc for perhaps 40-50 years, depending on how long he lives in prison.

[Grave_n_idle]

Thats why, Singapore should have our hangings conducted in public rather than in private. Set an example to the scum of society. Expand the death penalty to cover vandalism and stealing as well, rather than just drug possession or murder. No reason to support the criminal's worthless hide in prison after all, its my damn tax money.

I despise every criminal slime in the world. Personal opinion.

And thus you support the murder of innocent people by the state. Herp.

Actually, that' specifically NOT what the post said.

I think it's ridiculous to extend a death penalty to crimes like vandalism and theft, but that's still pretty far from 'the murder of innocent people'.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm in favor of it. It's stupid to have murders sitting in jail for the rest of their lives, wasting money and risking lives of other inmates and guards.

Wasn't it already mentioned that the death penalty wastes more money than life imprisonment?

It doesn't. Attaching a lot of other costs wastes more money than life imprisonment.

The death penalty itself is usually fairly competitively priced.

[Grave_n_idle]

how so? It totally depends on what methods you use for it. Hanging/firing squad is fairly economical.

Not referring to just the killing, which would cost as little as a noose and a trapdoor would cost. You have to account for all the costs involved in the legal process to actually make very very sure that you are executing a truly guilty person. These procedures are necessary and cannot practically be abolished. And they alone outweigh the accumulated costs of keeping someone behind bars.

Nonsense. You don't 'have to account' for those costs, at all. Those are not the cost of the death penalty - they are the costs of things added to a death penalty, and they are not necessary - they are just convenient.

[Alyakia]

On the other hand - those aren't the only two options. You can kill all the bad guys without having to kill everyone else. Although, to make sure you get all the bad guys, you might have to sacrifice one or two others.

Are you willing to be that sacrifice? Or have your wife/kids be that sacrifice?

You mean the criminal investigations etc? But such costs are also applicable to convicting a person and sentencing him to jail.

Not really.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411625_md_death_penalty.pdf

We find that both the filing of a death notice and the imposition of a death sentence added significantly to the cost of a case. For the average case, a death notice adds $670,000 in costs over the duration of a case. A death sentence adds an additional $1.2 million in processing costs. Thus the average total cost for a single death sentence is about $1.9 million over and above the cost of a similar case with no death penalty sought.

About 70% of the added cost of a death notice case occurs during the trial phase. These additional costs are due to a longer pre-trial period, a longer and more intensive voir dire process, longer trials, more time spent by more attorneys preparing cases, and an expensive penalty phase
trial that does not occur at all in non-death penalty cases. In addition, death notice casesare more likely to incur costs during the appellate phase even if there is no death sentence.

http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/reports/ ... ENALTY.pdf

We currently have a dysfunctional system. The lapse of time from sentence of death to execution averages over two decades in California. Just to keep cases moving at this snail’s pace, we spend large amounts of taxpayers’ money each year: by conservative estimates, well over one hundred million dollars annually. The families of murder victims are cruelly deluded into believing that justice will be delivered with finality during their lifetimes. Those condemned to death in violation of law must wait years until the courts determine they are entitled to a new trial or penalty hearing. The strain placed by these cases on our justice system, in terms of the time and attention taken away from other business that the courts must conduct for our citizens, is heavy. To reduce the average lapse of time from sentence to execution by half, to the national average of 12 years, we will have to spend nearly twice what we are spending now.

---------------------------

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present
system after implementation of the reforms recommended in Part A ($232.7 million per year), a system in which significant narrowing of special
circumstances has been implemented ($130 million per year), and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million).

It doesn't. Attaching a lot of other costs wastes more money than life imprisonment.

The death penalty itself is usually fairly competitively priced.

Can you find a way to have the death penalty without the added costs?

Even the other members of the "right are made up" squad find trying to take the trials out of the equation impossible.

[Alyakia]

Not referring to just the killing, which would cost as little as a noose and a trapdoor would cost. You have to account for all the costs involved in the legal process to actually make very very sure that you are executing a truly guilty person. These procedures are necessary and cannot practically be abolished. And they alone outweigh the accumulated costs of keeping someone behind bars.

Nonsense. You don't 'have to account' for those costs, at all. Those are not the cost of the death penalty - they are the costs of things added to a death penalty, and they are not necessary - they are just convenient.

Added would imply they come afterwards, instead of being a prerequisite in the justice systems of any first world nation, which they are.

You're the one speaking nonsense. Even the other nonsense speakers think you're speaking nonsense.

[Grave_n_idle]

Nonsense. You don't 'have to account' for those costs, at all. Those are not the cost of the death penalty - they are the costs of things added to a death penalty, and they are not necessary - they are just convenient.

Added would imply they come afterwards, instead of being a prerequisite in the justice systems of any first world nation, which they are.

You're the one speaking nonsense. Even the other nonsense speakers think you're speaking nonsense.

No, they are not a prerequisite - they are conveniences.

Perhaps you don't understand what an actual prerequisite would look like?

[Alyakia]

Added would imply they come afterwards, instead of being a prerequisite in the justice systems of any first world nation, which they are.

You're the one speaking nonsense. Even the other nonsense speakers think you're speaking nonsense.

No, they are not a prerequisite - they are conveniences.

Perhaps you don't understand what an actual prerequisite would look like?

Yes. They are.

Can you seriously imagine applying the death penalty without these "added costs" in a real world context? If so, explain how this would work and how you imagine implementing this system would go. If not, stop wasting my bloody time.

RIGHTS ARE MADE UP. *puff* TRIALS ARE JUST A CONVENIENCE MAN. *puff*

[JJ Place]

Not true, often execution leads to more violence in the name of retaliation.

I think you've been watching too much of the new Torchwood series. Meanwhile, in reality, people that are executed actually do stop committing crimes.

You think that anything stops with execution? You might want to consider a few, historical implications.

[Grave_n_idle]

I think you've been watching too much of the new Torchwood series. Meanwhile, in reality, people that are executed actually do stop committing crimes.

You think that anything stops with execution?

Yes.

Ted Bundy, for example. Not only has he not committed a single offence - not even littering - since January 25th, 1989... but it's guaranteed that this trend is permanent and 100% consistent.

[Furthermore]

You think that anything stops with execution?

Yes.

Ted Bundy, for example. Not only has he not committed a single offence - not even littering - since January 25th, 1989... but it's guaranteed that this trend is permanent and 100% consistent.

Hahaha.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, they are not a prerequisite - they are conveniences.

Perhaps you don't understand what an actual prerequisite would look like?

Yes. They are.

Can you seriously imagine applying the death penalty without these "added costs" in a real world context? If so, explain how this would work and how you imagine implementing this system would go. If not, stop wasting my bloody time.

RIGHTS ARE MADE UP. *puff* TRIALS ARE JUST A CONVENIENCE MAN. *puff*

I didn't say trials were a convenience. I said all the additional crap and alterations to the basic paradigm are conveniences. They are not 'necessary' to the process.

If you can't debate honestly, feel free to address someone else. Someone who doesn't mind that kind of crap.

[Alyakia]

No, they are not a prerequisite - they are conveniences.

Perhaps you don't understand what an actual prerequisite would look like?

Yes. They are.

Can you seriously imagine applying the death penalty without these "added costs" in a real world context? If so, explain how this would work and how you imagine implementing this system would go. If not, stop wasting my bloody time.

RIGHTS ARE MADE UP. *puff* TRIALS ARE JUST A CONVENIENCE MAN. *puff*

Yo I know you like avoiding my posts (like the one about how innocent people can't do anything after they're executed either!) so I quoted this for you. :3

[Alyakia]

Yes. They are.

Can you seriously imagine applying the death penalty without these "added costs" in a real world context? If so, explain how this would work and how you imagine implementing this system would go. If not, stop wasting my bloody time.

RIGHTS ARE MADE UP. *puff* TRIALS ARE JUST A CONVENIENCE MAN. *puff*

I didn't say trials were a convenience. I said all the additional crap and alterations to the basic paradigm are conveniences. They are not 'necessary' to the process.

If you can't debate honestly, feel free to address someone else. Someone who doesn't mind that kind of crap.

They're not necessary? So.... Can you seriously imagine applying the death penalty without these "added costs" in a real world context? If so, explain how this would work and how you imagine implementing this system would go.

The added costs, or at least 70% of them, are trials. You said these are conveniences.

[Drackonisa]

No, they are not a prerequisite - they are conveniences.

Perhaps you don't understand what an actual prerequisite would look like?

Yes. They are.

Can you seriously imagine applying the death penalty without these "added costs" in a real world context? If so, explain how this would work and how you imagine implementing this system would go. If not, stop wasting my bloody time.

RIGHTS ARE MADE UP. *puff* TRIALS ARE JUST A CONVENIENCE MAN. *puff*

internal security act. if there is sufficient threat to the state we can detain a convict indefinitely without need for trial. I suppose we can extend it to include the death penalty. We already utilize it to detain commies, gangsters and other thrash.

[Alyakia]

Yes. They are.

Can you seriously imagine applying the death penalty without these "added costs" in a real world context? If so, explain how this would work and how you imagine implementing this system would go. If not, stop wasting my bloody time.

RIGHTS ARE MADE UP. *puff* TRIALS ARE JUST A CONVENIENCE MAN. *puff*

internal security act. if there is sufficient threat to the state we can detain a convict indefinitely without need for trial. I suppose we can extend it to include the death penalty. We already utilize it to detain commies, gangsters and other thrash.

My mind is a seive. Are you the Singaporean guy or American?

[Grave_n_idle]

I didn't say trials were a convenience. I said all the additional crap and alterations to the basic paradigm are conveniences. They are not 'necessary' to the process.

If you can't debate honestly, feel free to address someone else. Someone who doesn't mind that kind of crap.

They're not necessary? So.... Can you seriously imagine applying the death penalty without these "added costs" in a real world context? If so, explain how this would work...

You're acting like it would be hard.

If someone is found guilty of a sufficiently heinous crime, with a sufficiently strong case against them (effectively, incontrovertible), then they are taking to a place of lawful execution, where they are executed.

Normal trial cost. Normal transport cost. Far less cost in accommodation and resources. Elapsed time closer to minutes than decades.

[Alyakia]

They're not necessary? So.... Can you seriously imagine applying the death penalty without these "added costs" in a real world context? If so, explain how this would work...

You're acting like it would be hard.

If someone is found guilty of a sufficiently heinous crime, with a sufficiently strong case against them (effectively, incontrovertible), then they are taking to a place of lawful execution, where they are executed.

Normal trial cost. Normal transport cost. Far less cost in accommodation and resources. Elapsed time closer to minutes than decades.

I would mentioned the innocents executed, but you really don't give a shit, do you?

Are you going to put death row inmates in the general population? What about appeals?

"These additional costs are due to a longer pre-trial period, a longer and more intensive voir dire process, longer trials, more time spent by more attorneys preparing cases, and an expensive penalty phase trial that does not occur at all in non-death penalty cases. In addition, death notice casesare more likely to incur costs during the appellate phase even if there is no death sentence."

Are you telling me none of this will happen? That death penalty cases will be just the exact same as a trial for anything else?

[Grave_n_idle]

I would mentioned the innocents executed, but you really don't give a shit, do you?

On the contrary, I really do.

Which is why I think we need a death penalty.

Are you going to put death row inmates in the general population?

No. There should be no 'death row'.

What about appeals?

Did I mention appeals?

"These additional costs are due to a longer pre-trial period, a longer and more intensive voir dire process, longer trials, more time spent by more attorneys preparing cases, and an expensive penalty phase trial that does not occur at all in non-death penalty cases. In addition, death notice casesare more likely to incur costs during the appellate phase even if there is no death sentence."

Convenience. Not prerequisite.

Are you telling me none of this will happen?

None of this need happen.

That death penalty cases will be just the exact same as a trial for anything else?

No, there should be no 'death penalty cases'.

There should be cases.

[JJ Place]

You think that anything stops with execution?

Yes.

Ted Bundy, for example. Not only has he not committed a single offence - not even littering - since January 25th, 1989... but it's guaranteed that this trend is permanent and 100% consistent.

Ted Bundy was also behind maximum security bars, that would have kept him from committing any addition crimes. Murdering Ted Bundy, however, did not end any future crimes committed in his name; death ends a remarkably small amount of phenomena, and perpetuates a number more consequences.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes.

Ted Bundy, for example. Not only has he not committed a single offence - not even littering - since January 25th, 1989... but it's guaranteed that this trend is permanent and 100% consistent.

Ted Bundy was also behind maximum security bars, that would have kept him from committing any addition crimes. Murdering Ted Bundy, however, did not end any future crimes committed in his name; death ends a remarkably small amount of phenomena, and perpetuates a number more consequences.

Ted Bundy committed no crimes in February 1989, or ever again. Ever.

If you can't actually address that, you're wasting both of our time.

[Drackonisa]

internal security act. if there is sufficient threat to the state we can detain a convict indefinitely without need for trial. I suppose we can extend it to include the death penalty. We already utilize it to detain commies, gangsters and other thrash.

My mind is a seive. Are you the Singaporean guy or American?

singaporean.

[Alyakia]

Reminds me, you never said whehter you'd be willing to be the sacrifice or have your wife/kids be the sacrifice.

On the contrary, I really do.

Which is why I think we need a death penalty.

Because if we don't kill literally everyone we're LETTING them kill our children.

No. There should be no 'death row'.

So they should be put in with the general population? Or they should just be killed straight away, what could possibly go wrong?

When you bring in a mass murderer, are you going to put him in with the rest of the prisoners while he waits for trial? You do like to talk about inmates murdering inmates.

Did I mention appeals?

No. Thus the question. It seems there will be no appeals though. Sounds like a great idea.

None of this need happen.

But will it happen? Are lawyers, knowing that their failure or success today may kill a man, going to spend the same amount of time preparing as they do for every case? Are you saying that, knowing there is a chance a man may be killed, and understanding how serious this is, that the lentgh of preparation time will be the same as all other cases?

No, there should be no 'death penalty cases'.

There should be cases.

Cases and cases that may or may not result in people being killed.

[Alyakia]

Ted Bundy was also behind maximum security bars, that would have kept him from committing any addition crimes. Murdering Ted Bundy, however, did not end any future crimes committed in his name; death ends a remarkably small amount of phenomena, and perpetuates a number more consequences.

Ted Bundy committed no crimes in February 1989, or ever again. Ever.

If you can't actually address that, you're wasting both of our time.

No really, why aren't you applying the "they'll never do anyhting agaaaaaaaain" logic to innocent people executed? I really want to see you do it. :3