Two Death Penalty Questiosns

[runner4life7]

What if only those who admitted to such crimes were killed. Such crimes including 1st degree murder, rape, child molestation and treason. Then other than those such cases I think it would require some form of evidence to put the suspect at the scene such as DNA or photos. If it is a "clear" cut then it should theoretically never fail. But I think 1:1000 would still be acceptable. It takes a lot in this day and age to be convicted of crimes of those degrees with that certainty and still be innocent.

[John Cole]

It costs far more to execute someone.

[Girchuck]

Death penalty as implemented at present is more expensive than life imprisonment.
The average capital case with all the subsequent appeals and death row housing costs runs into several million dollars.
Keeping a prisoner in jail costs the state about 50000 per year, conservatively. The prisoner would have to survive an average of 40 years in jail in order for lifetime incarceration cost to approach death penalty cost.

[djoyce003]

Personally, I think any error rate should be relatively intolerable. I only support the death penalty in cases of murder where there is multiple forms of ironclad proof. If there is the slightest doubt, then i'm not in favor of it on that particular case. However, when there is physical and eyewitness evidence supporting the conviction, then i'm ok with it.

I don't really care if it serves as a deterrent either. They killed someone, fry/stick/gas em. They are a worthless piece of trash, and it offends me that they can breathe the same air as me. It costs money to keep them in maximum security as well. But then you really shouldn't ask me because I wouldn't be opposed to the death penalty also being imposed on people that were convicted multiple times of violent crimes. If some dude goes to prison 4 freaking times for armed robbery, chances are he's not going to be a contributing member to society any time soon. I say do it like they do in China...take him behind the courthouse, shoot him in the back of the head, and send a bill for the bullet to his family.

[adios]

A few of stated that they're for the death penalty if there's 100% certainty or very close to it. How does one make this determination and why isn't the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard close enough? Put another way how close is the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to very close to 100% certainty? Also isn't this the function of the penalty phase of the trial? Just wondering how this would be codified into law.

[Lestat]

I realize that this is a subject if debate. How solid are your numbers? Can I count on them being accurate?

Also, are you factoring in medical expenses (not just routine care, but say major surgery, or extened care and treatment of serious illnesses, etc.)?

I'm not sure how much capital offenses contribute to overcrowding, but it must contribute some. What about those costs?

I really don't know the answers to these questions, so you could easily be right. But a key phrase in your post is, "at present". This can and should be improved upon.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
It costs far more to execute someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I mentioned elsewhere, I believe that's debatable, but I could be wrong.

Still, proponents of the death penalty have reasons other than cost for carrying out executions.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think any error rate should be relatively intolerable. I only support the death penalty in cases of murder where there is multiple forms of ironclad proof. If there is the slightest doubt, then i'm not in favor of it on that particular case. However, when there is physical and eyewitness evidence supporting the conviction, then i'm ok with it.

I don't really care if it serves as a deterrent either. They killed someone, fry/stick/gas em. They are a worthless piece of trash, and it offends me that they can breathe the same air as me. It costs money to keep them in maximum security as well. But then you really shouldn't ask me because I wouldn't be opposed to the death penalty also being imposed on people that were convicted multiple times of violent crimes. If some dude goes to prison 4 freaking times for armed robbery, chances are he's not going to be a contributing member to society any time soon. I say do it like they do in China...take him behind the courthouse, shoot him in the back of the head, and send a bill for the bullet to his family.

[/ QUOTE ]

The current standard of proof inthe US as in the UK is guilty beyond reasoable doubt. Do you envisage your standard of not the slightest doubt to be a stronger test?

In the UK we are currently having tens of people having their double child killer murder convictions overturned. All convicted on flawed testimony of one "expert" who has just been struck of the UK medical register. All who are now free because they weren't "fried" for being found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of double child murder. All poor women who happened to bear children with defects that resulted in "natural" cot deaths. Still, i guess some may argue if executing 20 innocent women is not a blight on the society when the "greater good" is considered so be it.

I guess you don't realise how medeaeval the US judicial system appears to a lot of us over the pond, and no doubt in the US too. The prosecution giving a guy repeated IQ tests till his score ups enough so he is no longer to be considered a mental defective so he can be executed is, in my view, nothing more than legalised barbarism.

For those who support the death penalty even though innocents do get convicted, just hope you aren't that innocent. If they do get caught up in such a thing, the million to one shot, I suppose they will have the compensation of knowing their execution is to be welcomed in view of the benefit to society as a whole.

[fyodor]

Today in Ontario it is being reported that a girl was murdered 15 years ago by someone who had murdered twice previously, and was released 12 years into a life sentence.

Ask the girl how she feels about the death sentence?

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
It costs far more to execute someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

assume that in 100 years it is far more expensive to incarcerate. Would you allow for any error then?