[Blue Lion]

I have never flamed anyone here 

Also, I made the second post in the thread.

[iamzack]

Your tone is unpleasant and irritating.

[Blue Lion]

You don't like my tone? That's not flaming 

[colecampbell666]

KT isn't as bad, but QFT on the rest.

I agree with kara/HT/whoever's viewpoint on the subject.

[General Battuta]

Only if Trashman, Knight Templar, Liberator, High Max, or Blue Lion show up. Everyone else is able to be reasonable and not flamey.

I gotta admit I haven't been great lately. I've snapped at Mobius a few times.

As for the initial argument, Scotty, you are aware that Death Row is actually really expensive, right?

[iamzack]

As it is, the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Except in those few rare cases where the inmate wants to die and doesn't appeal.  Those are the ones we need to commute to life.  When they can't stand being in jail that bad keep them there.

[Ford Prefect]

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

Never has an author so conveniently summed up my opinion on a relevant ethical question.

[Uchuujinsan]

Well, first my view about "view as guilty-> shoot immediatly" vs "10 years in death row, then kill" (like in the USA afaik):
In the first case it's very cheap, but you get a LOT of innocents, while the latter protects innocents better, but is quite expensive. There's also a sliding scale in between. Always keep that in mind while arguing about the price.

Well, my view on the matter itself:
pro death sentence:
feeling of revenge makes it less painfull for the victims/relatives of the victims
dead people can't endanger anyone


contra:
if the government shows that killing people is ok, even good, the society will learn this as well. As a result, people will be more ready to kill themselves on average.
it's unavoidable that innocents are killed (though it's unavoidable that innocents are imprisoned.. it's a matter of severity)
more expensive (if you try to weaken this argument, you are probably strengthening the one above)
if people know death sentence awaits them, they got nothing to lose.

neutral/refutable:
prevention - people rarely commit crimes in the believe to get caught, especially in the case of severe crimes ->little to no effect
cheaper - not true, or only true in case of endangering innocents (strengthening the counterargument above again)
"the executioner has killed a person, and needs now to be executed as well" - murder =! killing people
"killing is always wrong" - i don't believe in this, it's justifiable in self-defense, and certainly elsewhere
it's justice (eye for an eye..) - don't believe in this either

All in all, while being neutral if you exclude the first contra argument, this argument is sever enough for me to be against any death penalty, in any case.
I had discussions to solve this particular problem, but we didn't get a workable solution.
So, I'll probably go back to lurking.

[karajorma]

This is going to quickly devolve into a flame-war, you know.

It will quickly evolve into the peace and quiet of multiple monkeyings if it does.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Can anyone (try to) explain in simple terms why the death penalty is expensive?

[castor]

Performing one involves a lot of people, for long periods of time (some fo them very well payed).

[Mobius]

The reason why I created that thread was discussing the subject. I think I should have created a thread here on General Discussion, instead.

Despite what people think, death sentences are being progressively phased out. It's one of the many barbarian feature of modern society, and it will soon disappear.

Come to think to it, which countries are relying on death penalties? Iran? China? Even mentioning them is self explanatory...

And now, the most important thing. Imagine that you've been accused of a crime even if you're innocent - I don't think that's a nice experience. If you're sentenced to death, you die and full stop. If you're sent to jail, you may get out from it after a while if you're proved innocent (and, believe me, that happens). In the wise words of Roberto Benigni, "I don't want to share even 1/60,000,000 of the responsibility for killing a person on purpose." Killing is a crime, and if a state kills a person all citizens are somewhat responsible.

It's quite funny how people who think that death penalties are a good thing get tremendously scared when thinking about the bad consequences.

Can anyone (try to) explain in simple terms why the death penalty is expensive?

Performing one involves a lot of people, for long periods of time.

I heard that recent studies show how death penalty is expensive AND doesn't prevent crimes from occurring. Think about how death penalties are carried on - don't you need money? A lot of money?

Even if it's not expensive, do you think earning money is a good reason to kill people that should stay in jail instead? 

[karajorma]

Can anyone (try to) explain in simple terms why the death penalty is expensive?

Court costs. The defendant usually spends many years on Death Row during which they usually launch appeal after appeal. Prisoners serving time (even those in for a life term) tend to spend less time on appeal.

Sure you can cut down on the number of appeals but only if you're willing to let more innocent people get executed.

[Liberator]

I heard my name called!

Anyway, my opinion, since that is what was asked for, is this:

Due process is all fine and good, we don't want to punish an innocent man after all, but once due process is over, then the needle or gas or rifle or whatever is deemed an appropriate death is handed down ASAP.  ASAP does not mean 5, 10 or 20 years after the final appeal.  ASAP would be a maximum of a couple weeks to allow the condemned to make his final preparations.

The death penalty should be reserved for the heinous offenders such as serial killers, serial rapists, and organized crime figures primarily.  I do not believe that the penalty should be handed down in single murders or other violent crime, I favor a Life sentence, preferably at hard labor for this class of offenders.

I'll extend this discussion a little with the following.  Prison is not tough enough these days.  I'm not saying they should be gulags, but I would only extend limited privileges to people who are incarcerated.  Including limited fitness equipment, a library and self-improvement facilities.  I would not allow "cable television", but providing an outlet to stay informed of current events would be adequate.  Also, I would limit communication with the outside even more than it already is for lifers and max/supermax inmates with the warden given wide latitude with how he deals with discipline within his facility, but with strong oversight with monthly inspections to ensure that inmates are being well-treated and not abused or taken advantage of.  Prison is for criminals to be punished for whatever wrong-doing they have perpetrated on society, the purpose to lock away the ones who are recidivists and train and prepare the rest to return to society better prepared to deal with they're situations.

A lot of recidivism stems from the fact that parolees are not necessarily put into a position to where they can say "No" to they're old lives and habits.  Offenders often return to the exact same circumstances that led them to prison in the first place.  A system needs to be in place to ensure that they make strong decisions.

[Mobius]

The question remains: how can you be 100% sure that the person you're about to condemn to death is fully responsible for the crimes he/she's been accused of?

[peterv]

The question remains: how can you be 100% sure that the person you're about to condemn to death is fully responsible for the crimes he/she's been accused of?

Even if you could, death penalty would still be an ugly thing.

[Herra Tohtori]

Why is death penalty considered heavier as a punishment than not being allowed to actually live for the rest of your life?

Everyone dies anyway, so what's the point? Wouldn't it be more of a punishment to put your ass in a cell with very limited amount of things you would be allowed to do, until you die anyway? If it is punishment you are after, that is. If you just want to get rid of the convict, that's a different matter... but even then there's the very real issue of possibly convicting an innocent. Which, to me is unacceptable. Due process or without. Like the wise old man said... even the very wise cannot see all ends.

[Blue Lion]

Why is murder considered a heavier crime then if everyone is just going to die anyways?

[MP-Ryan]

I agree as well. In Canada the average life sentence is about 5-8 years.

That is complete and utter bull****, cole.  Anyone sentenced to LIFE is also given an accompanying parole eligibility.  For adults, first degree murder is a mandatory 25 year sentence (and they can begin applying for parole under the so-called "faint hope clause" after 15 years but granting under that provision is rare).  Second degree murder carries a minimum 10 years.  (Youth are different.)

Life sentences don't mean life in prison, but they mean life in the justice system.  Offenders given a life sentence may get parole, but it is a permanent state - that reporting provision and record never go away.  They spend the rest of their lives reporting on a regular basis to CSC parole officers.  They are restricted in where they can work, travel, and vacation.

There is this notion that floats around laypeople who think that there are no consequences to a life sentence when that is anything but the case.  In addition, the recidivist rate for people with life sentences is basically non-existent.