If they've been sentenced to death ,why are they on a waiting list for 10-15 years to be executed? It doesn't take that long to execute someone, and it's relatively inexpensive (costs less than keeping them aslive for 10-15 years!). I say abolish death row. All that saved money could be used to help the living.

If they've been sentenced to death ,why are they on a waiting list for 10-15 years to be executed?
Because they legally have the right to appeal. There are 13 levels of appeals in the process. (I think it's 13.)
I say abolish death row. All that saved money could be used to help the living.
Abolish death row for what? The only alternative is life in prison. It costs a lot more to house someone doing the wheel than to execute them, even if it takes 20 years to do it. Don't kid yourself about saved money. The Department of Corrections is a state agency. As such, they are alloted a certain amount for their budget. Like any government agency, if the money isn't spent they won't get the same amount next year. They will always spend the extra money. Always.

You mis-quoted me. Abolish death row means they don't wait to be executed. I agree with the death penalty.

I didn't misquote you. You misstated what you meant.

Abolish means to get rid of. If you abolish death row, that means you do away with it. What you want is something like a public hanging at 8:00 AM the next morning. That is still death row, they'll just spend a shorter time on it.

When I give the justice system an overhaul, I'll make sure to consider that. :D

Originally posted by Ponycar_302
The only alternative is life in prison. It costs a lot more to house someone doing the wheel than to execute them, even if it takes 20 years to do it.
Not true. From Amnesty International:
Capital punishment is a far more expensive system than one whose maximum penalty is life in prison.

A New York study estimated the cost of an execution at three times that of life imprisonment
In Florida, each execution costs the state $3.2million, compared to $600,000
Studies in California, Kansas, Maryland, and North Carolina have all concluded that capital punishment is far more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life.
In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about 3 times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. This figure does not include the cost of the federal appeals process where 50 % to 70% of the death sentences are overturned.

The greatest costs of the death penalty are incurred prior to and at trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings were abolished, the death penalty system would still be more expensive than the alternative.

Within the death penalty system, trials have two separate phases (conviction and sentencing); they are typically preceded by special motions and extra jury selection questioning.
More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.
These costs are incurred even though the outcome of most death penalty trials is a sentence other than death, and even though a high percentage of death verdicts are reversed in the constitutionally required first appeal.
When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, the taxpayer incurs all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceeding and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).

I dont' buy those numbers, included in the death penalty figures are the costs of imprisonment prior to execution, these should not be included as they would be there if the miscreant was doing life.

The appeals process could be shortened and made better by using some high techgizmos to determine guilt of innocence one a person is convicted.

cosmo, they didn't pull the numbers out of their asses, they're real numbers.

If you take the amount of money spent on someone from the moment they are arrested to the moment they die in prison, and compare it to the amount of money spent on the same person arrested for the same crime until they're executed, it costs much more to execute them. Period.

The appeals process could be shortened and made better by using some high techgizmos to determine guilt of innocence one a person is convicted.
Once a person is convicted? So you want to convict them and then prove their innocence?

I don't buy those numbers. A lethal injection HAS to cost less than 15 years of imprisonment. Public hangings.....now there's a thought :) How can an execution cost 3.2 million? Are they giving prisoners the "Deluxe Execution"? LOL those figures are :bs: ,I'm sorry to say.

Ok Diabhal, I'll have to agree with you since you're an expert on the trial process and execution and stuff. You must be right, sorry.

Here here Diabhal! I said it many times over till I was blue in the face but I will say it again. The death penalty has got to go in the US of A. No civilized nation should have this kind of punishment. Life in prison, yes, death no.

Originally posted by Criminal
Here here Diabhal! I said it many times over till I was blue in the face but I will say it again. The death penalty has got to go in the US of A. No civilized nation should have this kind of punishment. Life in prison, yes, death no. Sorry, I've been misconstrued. The death penalty should stay, the waiting period for execution should be cut down. Thanks, Igofast. Appeasement gets you nowhere fast.

Then perhaps you could dig up some reliable figures that deny the previous ones?

Because shouting something is wrong doesn' mean a whole lot if you can't show why it's wrong...

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Then perhaps you could dig up some reliable figures that deny the previous ones?

Because shouting something is wrong doesn' mean a whole lot if you can't show why it's wrong... If you chose to read the other posts, you'd know I'm not thje only one who doesn't believe those statistics. Look at Cosmo's post before "Diabhal bashing":|

Ok... I may not best debater in the world... and I'm certainly not going to go searching through archives to dig up some statistics that may or maynot be accurate. However I do know that IF it cost alot more money to execute someone then were doing something wrong! 13 appeals is ridiculous!!!!

To be convicted guilty it needs to be PROVEN With out a reasonable doubt....Which is all fine and dandy... but does this really have to be done 13 times!?!?

How about 2... 2 is a good number... 2 appeals.... so ya get 3 strikes total. After appeal number 3 fails they haul you off the next day and hang, shoot, gas, or whatever it is there doing in your state!

I am in agreement with Diabhal... Not that deathrow should be Fully eliminated, however it should be dramtically shortened. If takes something like 15 years now to prove a persons guilty 14 times over. Can we say OVERKILL.

Reduce it to 3 years. WHam BANG thank you Judge!

-Æ (Peace)

Originally posted by ÆSiR
Ok... I may not best debater in the world... and I'm certainly not going to go searching through archives to dig up some statistics that may or maynot be accurate. However I do know that IF it cost alot more money to execute someone then were doing something wrong! 13 appeals is ridiculous!!!!

To be convicted guilty it needs to be PROVEN With out a reasonable doubt....Which is all fine and dandy... but does this really have to be done 13 times!?!?

How about 2... 2 is a good number... 2 appeals.... so ya get 3 strikes total. After appeal number 3 fails they haul you off the next day and hang, shoot, gas, or whatever it is there doing in your state!

I am in agreement with Diabhal... Not that deathrow should be Fully eliminated, however it should be dramtically shortened. If takes something like 15 years now to prove a persons guilty 14 times over. Can we say OVERKILL.

Reduce it to 3 years. WHam BANG thank you Judge!

-Æ (Peace) :werd:

Oh, ok, so if two or more people think something is B.S. then it must be, right?

From http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org:
Financial Facts About the Death Penalty:

* The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life (Duke University, May 1993.) Side note: Duke university is a pretty reputable source, no? On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion dollars spent since 1976 on the death penalty._ The study,"The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina" is available on line at www-pps.aas.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/comnc.pdf
* Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above and beyond what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post. Based on the 44 executions Florida has carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000)
* The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total in incurred at the trial level (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).
* Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution. (Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).
* In Texas, a 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. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).

From http://www.dnai.com/~mwood/deathpen.html:

Financial Costs
It is sometimes suggested that abolishing capital punishment is unfair to the taxpayer, as though life imprisonment were obviously more expensive than executions. If one takes into account all the relevant costs, the reverse is true. "The death penalty is not now, nor has it ever been, a more economical alternative to life imprisonment."(49)

A murder trial normally takes much longer when the death penalty is at issue than when it is not. Litigation costs - including the time of judges, prosecutors,public defenders, and court reporters, and the high costs of briefs -- are all borne by the taxpayer.

A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison.(50)Notice just the INITIAL TRIAL costs double what it would cost to keep a prisoner in prison for life.

In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty for the years 1979-1984 concluded that a death penalty case costs "approximately 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence."(51) In 1988 and 1989 th e Kansas legislature voted against reinstating the death penalty after it was informed that reintroduction would involve a first-year cost of "more than $ 11 million."(52) Florida, with one of the nation's largest death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence.(53)

The only way to make the death penalty a "better buy" than imprisonment is to weaken due process and curtail appellate review, which are the defendant's (and society's) only protections against the grossest miscarriages of justice. The savings in dollar s would be at the cost of justice: In nearly half of the death-penalty cases given review under federal habeas corpus, the conviction is overturned.(54)

sources:
49. Spangenberg and Walsh, in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (1989), p. 47
50. N. Y. State Defenders Assn., Capital Losses (1982).
51. U S. Govt. Accounting Office, Limited Data Available on Costs of Death Sentences (1989), p. 50.
52. Cited in Spangenberg and Walsh, note 49.
53. Miami Herald, July 10, 1988.
54. New York Times, Sept. 22, 1989


I could keep going if you want. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence that execution is cheaper.

A 30.06 round costs about a buck. You can get a single shot rifle for roughly $200. How much money did I just save Texas?

$2,300,000 - $201 = $2,299,799

At $201, my method paid for itself 11442 times over in the first execution, and at $1 per bullet, it paid for itself 2,300,000 times over during the following executions. In Florida, we can save even more.

Vote Betty for ruler of Earth!

Originally posted by igofast
Oh, ok, so if two or more people think something is B.S. then it must be, right?

I could keep going if you want. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence that execution is cheaper.

I never argued your numbers.

I just said it was "wrong"
By saying wrong I do not mean incorrect...

I mean is as... Well.. THATS JUST WRONG! Thats ridiculous, crazy... why why why.... ..*sigh* thats just wrong.

get it?

I'm saying it shouldn't be that way.
THere is no reason for it.

-Æ (The Master Debater)

I wasn't talkin to kitty, that was for those that were calling my figures B.S. I knew what you meant....

Originally posted by Betty
A 30.06 round costs about a buck. You can get a single shot rifle for roughly $200. How much money did I just save Texas?

$2,300,000 - $201 = $2,299,799

At $201, my method paid for itself 11442 times over in the first execution, and at $1 per bullet, it paid for itself 2,300,000 times over during the following executions. In Florida, we can save even more.

Vote Betty for ruler of Earth!
Cute. While I know you meant that in jest, I would like to point out that a capital trial (just the first initial trial without any appeals) costs more than keeping someone in jail for life. The actual execution is not what costs lots of money.

Very well. End the appeals for capital offenses. It's simple and effective, saves time and money. Afterall, they would just get it reduced to life imprisonment and die in jail or get paroled anyway. Execution should be carried out the next day.

Vote Betty for tyranical ruler of Earth!

no offense, but are you reading what I'm posting? The intial trial in a capital case without any appeals costs twice as much as keeping someone in prison for life. Even if there's no appeals, it's still mad expensive.

Partly misunderstood your point...

Ok, so how does the death sentence versus life imprisonment change the price of the trial?

We can't change the price of the trial, but we can change the price of the execution, can't we?

The answers are in the information I posted. Read it.

Igofast, I feel your pain.:D

The execution is not the expensive part. It's the trial. If we wanted to just randomly kill people that might be murderers we could legalize lynch mobs again and have people work pro bono to rid the city of "evildoers." However, I'd rather the JUSTICE SYSTEM take control of how JUSTICE IS ADMINISTERED!

And I could give a squat which makes YOU feel better, as it is, life in prison is cheaper than killing them, and you can't alter the cost structure without violating rights and endangering more innocent lives from being taken by a gov't. Appeals are a RIGHT. Even if it delays things, we still have RIGHTS. Even convicted murderers.

Justin

A murder trial normally takes much longer when the death penalty is at issue than when it is not. Litigation costs - including the time of judges, prosecutors,public defenders, and court reporters, and the high costs of briefs -- are all borne by the taxpayer.

So this is all over lawyer time? So, at some point someone reveals that the death penalty is being saught, which then causes the lawyers to put in more time and money into the case?

Ok, save the surprise for the end then.

We all get due process, right? A trial is a trial.

Ok, let's put this into perspective. The cost of the trial should not be included in the cost of keeping a person on death row. The cost of feeding them, lookingh after them day to day, their laundry. Take that into account when thinking of how much more expensive it is to keep them alive for 15 years. It would be cheaper to execute them MUCH sooner.

Why does a murder trial involving the death penalty cost more than a murder trial involving life imprisonment?

Originally posted by Diabhal
I say abolish death row.
I second that!
Death row's a sick joke. How many white killers end up there in comparison to the black people? Death row is a blight and a reproach, period. We should've been rid of it in 1960. We should never have had Capital Punishment in the first place.
Right on, Diabhal!

Originally posted by Diabhal
Abolish death row means they don't wait to be executed. I agree with the death penalty.

Oh, well in that case, I disagree with you, a lot.

Let's not make this a race thing. This is the wrong forum. Its good that you disagree. I'd be disappointed if everybody did agree.

Diabhal, what you propose is that the gov't execute people without giving them a fair opportunity to appeal. This would imply that the legal system is perfect.

It is not. Not even close.

If the legal system were indeed perfect, you'd have a point, but until everyone gets a fair trial their first time, every time, and their verdict and sentence are just that first time, everytime, we have to subject the system to multiple opportunities to be reviewed. That's what an appeal is. It is a legal review of the trial.

If the state is going to take away a citizen's life, you MUST ensure that it is doing so justly.

That's where the delays come in.

To live in a nation where the gov't takes a citizen's life without sufficient review is a dangerous one to ALL citizens potentially.

Your idea comes across as poorly thought out.

Justin

Originally posted by Diabhal
Let's not make this a race thing. This is the wrong forum. Its good that you disagree. I'd be disappointed if everybody did agree.

Ok, I'll try to refrain from mentioning race again in this thread.:)

Originally posted by Unrepresented
Diabhal, what you propose is that the gov't execute people without giving them a fair opportunity to appeal. This would imply that the legal system is perfect.

It is not. Not even close.

If the legal system were indeed perfect, you'd have a point, but until everyone gets a fair trial their first time, every time, and their verdict and sentence are just that first time, everytime, we have to subject the system to multiple opportunities to be reviewed. That's what an appeal is. It is a legal review of the trial.

If the state is going to take away a citizen's life, you MUST ensure that it is doing so justly.

That's where the delays come in.

To live in a nation where the gov't takes a citizen's life without sufficient review is a dangerous one to ALL citizens potentially.

Your idea comes across as poorly thought out.

Justin I'm sorry you feel that way. I thought it was good in principle. I'm sorry, I guess everybody should get 13 appeals, as though the legal system has to keep second guessing itself, like two or three juries is not enough people being shown the facts to prove someone guilty. Basically you're saying that one sufficient review where the jury finds someone guilty without reasonable doubt is not sufficient. I don't agree. Unless evidence is proven to have been tampered with, why should there be more trials to say the same thing OVER AND OIVER AND OVER AND OVER again? Isn't this forum called "issues: Let's take action"? If everybody took action in real life ,maybe the justice system could be reformed, maybe taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for a murdered to live for 15 years because the justice system second guesss itself, over and over and over again at the taxpayers expense, or so lawyers can make more money. Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist.

I'm sorry, I guess everybody should get 13 appeals, as though the legal system has to keep second guessing itself, like two or three juries is not enough people being shown the facts to prove someone guilty.
Do you know why they get 13 appeals? (Remember, I said I wasn't sure how many it is, I think it's 13.) It's because there is an initial appeal or two with the original court. Then it goes to a state level. Then a Federal circut, and keeps going higher and higher until it reaches the Supreme Court. There is no new jury each and every time. There is no new trial each and every time. There is simply an appeal for a new trial. Sometimes it works, but usually it doesn't because of the evidence.

Coincidentally, you are also entitled to these same rights. It isn't just for inmates.

Perhaps Criminal, or someone with more knowledge of the legal system, can elaborate.

Originally posted by alienation

I second that!
Death row's a sick joke. How many white killers end up there in comparison to the black people? Death row is a blight and a reproach, period. We should've been rid of it in 1960. We should never have had Capital Punishment in the first place.
Right on, Diabhal!

I would be curious as to how many whites are convicted of murder vs how many blacks.

Cosmo,

It's not really an issue that's black/white. It's more an issue of who can afford an attorney and who gets stuck with a public defender. Good attorneys get you less time. Most of the time it's blacks getting stuck with a public defender; however, that's not a race issue, it's a monetary one.

This may be backtracking us off topic, but can anyone tell me why we don't save the surprise for the end?

So this is all over lawyer time? So, at some point someone reveals that the death penalty is being saught, which then causes the lawyers to put in more time and money into the case?

Ok, save the surprise for the end then.

We all get due process, right? A trial is a trial.

Originally posted by Betty
This may be backtracking us off topic, but can anyone tell me why we don't save the surprise for the end?

I agree. They should do all these appeals to determine if the person is guilty, then drop the bombshell!
Judge" You've wasted millions in taxpayers money to prove again and again what everybody's know from the begining: You're guilty. I sentence you to a quick execution by a $200 shot gun with a $1 round, so as not to waste any more money on your sorry a$$".
Now that would be something.:)

I would be curious as to how many whites are convicted of murder vs how many blacks.

Check out the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. However, I really would not get into this as the "anti-racists" (yeah right!) on this board blame everyone for black crime except black criminals. Maybe we should drop this topic.

Anyway, there needs to be an overhaul of the legal system. 15 years is too long to wait to have someone executed. As for any racial debates, I think they can be discussed in another thread. I'm kind of disappointed that it was brought into this thread. It only attracts undesired arguments that don't belong here. Cosmo, if you're curious about how many whites get convicted as opposed to blacks, check out statistics.
I think people should get a fair trial .Think about this: How fair is it to have someone on deathrow for 15 years, going through all those trials, appeals ,etc. just to finally be executed. Is that fair on them to give them that false hope? Is it fair on the victim's family? Is it fair on the convicted person's family to have that false sense of hope?

Originally posted by Betty
This may be backtracking us off topic, but can anyone tell me why we don't save the surprise for the end?



Originally posted by Diabhal
I agree. They should do all these appeals to determine if the person is guilty, then drop the bombshell!
Judge" You've wasted millions in taxpayers money to prove again and again what everybody's know from the begining: You're guilty. I sentence you to a quick execution by a $200 shot gun with a $1 round, so as not to waste any more money on your sorry a$$".

Now that would be something.:)
I am astounded and horrified by the casual manner in which you two seem to be discussing the intentional killing of another human being.

I am astounded at the sympathy you have for murderers.

Originally posted by alienation



I am astounded and horrified by the casual manner in which you two seem to be discussing the intentional killing of another human being. I'm astounded that you didn't pick up on the sarcasm of my comment. It's ok, though.
I agree, Bo. Why should we have sympathy for murderers?:confused:

Originally posted by Diabhal
I'm astounded that you didn't pick up on the sarcasm of my comment. It's ok, though.
I agree, Bo. Why should we have sympathy for murderers?:confused:

Here's a thought.... reality and perception are not the same.

A court deciding a man is a murderer does not make him so.

A man committing a murder makes him a murderer.

We can find out how close those two things, reality and perception come together by CHECKING THE SYSTEM.

You have far too much faith in the gov't for your own, or anyone else's good.

Knowing that you're a member of the gov't doesn't give me more faith in it at all.

Justin

Yes, but how many times must you check the system, Justin? Really, how many times must the obvious be gone over again and again and again?

Originally posted by Diabhal
Yes, but how many times must you check the system, Justin? Really, how many times must the obvious be gone over again and again and again?
Consider this hypothetical: The person closest to you in your life was charged for a crime he/she didn't commit but no one (including you) knew whether they were guilty or not but them. They are then convicted and executed without appeals. Then evidence arrises that they were innocent. Would you shrug it off and accept the holes in the system? Even if now you say yes, I seriously doubt that would be the reality.

Appeals are necessary if you're going to put someone to death, there's no way around it. Even with them innocent people have been killed.

Originally posted by Betty
I am astounded at the sympathy you have for murderers.

Yup, I feel sorry for the murderers, and the wrongly convicted death row inmates too (assuming that there are any such people, which, sadly, doesn't sound like a very implausible assumption to me). :)

Originally posted by Diabhal
I'm astounded that you didn't pick up on the sarcasm of my comment. It's ok, though.

Oh, sarcasm, sorry. I have often been a bit slow to detect, or incapable of detecting sarcasm, depending upon one's viewpoint.

I agree, Bo. Why should we have sympathy for murderers?:confused:
I think we should have sympathy for murderers because the vast majority of us are sinners, and the penalty for sin is death. So, inasmuch as we are not without sin, we shouldn't be casting the first stone. If you want to lock up murderers for life, in solitary, and deny them conjugal visits or more than one letter in and out of prison a month, I'll pay more in taxes in order to bring that about if it means an end to the death penalty.
Also, what about the people who were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death? Are they just the price we pay for an (I believe) illusory sense of greater safety? What madness that seems to me to be! So, that's why.

Alienation,
I appreciate you bringing up a good point that we're all sinners, but I don't go by the Christian moral system. Stealing a car or robbing a store is one thing, murder is another. Death is an acceptable punishment for that crime in my opinion. If it wasn't for women lying about rape, I would impose death for that too.

Of course that is an issue of values, while this thread is more based on money. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

It says in our justice system that there is not statute of limitation on murder. What is being said is that one sin is ie stealing is just as bad as murder. I don't think death should be an option for rapists, but something harsher than waht is already in place, that's for sure.

That's just the thing though. Women can lie about rape. Corpses can't lie about murder.

Just FYI, rape was a capital crime in some states up until the forties(I think it was the forties).

That's right. Corpses can't lie about murder, so there's no comparison between a woman crying rape, and someone being murdered. A corpse doesn't just cry out "Bloody murder!" lol, that WOULD be interesting.

But witnesses can lie, and evidence can be deceiving. Just because you have proof that there was a murder doesn't mean there is always concrete proof one specific person did it. That's what appeals are for.

Originally posted by igofast
But witnesses can lie, and evidence can be deceiving. Just because you have proof that there was a murder doesn't mean there is always concrete proof one specific person did it. That's what appeals are for. True, but I think there's way too many appeals.

Originally posted by Diabhal
True, but I think there's way too many appeals.

Says constitutional and legal expert Diabhal.:rolleyes:

Do you even know how the appeal process works?

do you understand that there are HIGHER COURTS available to review cases?

If we got rid of appeals, that'd basically give every county courthouse the right to decide a man's fate. The appeal process allows for state, and even eventually Supreme Court decisions.

Higher courts review lower courts.

Higher courts can review those higher courts.

It's all there NOT JUST FOR DEATH PENALTY CASES but for ALL legal decisions.

You're suggesting that we should get rid of the entire court system, with the exception of the local courts. That's one of the most foolish and shortsighted ideas I've heard yet.

Justin

Hmm, might have to change your sig justin.

Originally posted by Unrepresented


Says constitutional and legal expert Diabhal.:rolleyes:
Sarcasm doesn't help you ,Justin. Are you attacking me or my reasonable ideas?


Do you even know how the appeal process works? Not 100%. I never professed to being an expert, but I'm sure you are.


do you understand that there are HIGHER COURTS available to review cases? No need to SHOUT. No kidding, we have higher courts, I'd never have guessed.


If we got rid of appeals, that'd basically give every county courthouse the right to decide a man's fate. The appeal process allows for state, and even eventually Supreme Court decisions.

Higher courts review lower courts.

Higher courts can review those higher courts.

It's all there NOT JUST FOR DEATH PENALTY CASES but for ALL legal decisions.

You're suggesting that we should get rid of the entire court system, with the exception of the local courts. That's one of the most foolish and shortsighted ideas I've heard yet.

Justin I never said "get rid of all appeals all together.
Get you facts straight, Justin (another one for your sig)

Back on topic. The appeals system has to be overhauled so that it takes less time, therefore considerably reducing the length of deathrow.

But your reason for wanting that time shortened is financial, right? If that's the case, you should be against capital punishment, that's where all the money goes, not keeping someone alive while their case is appealed.

Originally posted by igofast
But your reason for wanting that time shortened is financial, right? If that's the case, you should be against capital punishment, that's where all the money goes, not keeping someone alive while their case is appealed. We've gone over this....it doesn't cost much to execute someone, it's the appeal process involved.

Holy crap, diabhal, I've posted tons of info on this.

ONE LAST TIME: THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL PROCESS OF A CAPITAL PUNISHMENT TRIAL COSTS TWICE AS MUCH AS IT DOES TO KEEP SOMEONE IN PRISON FOR LIFE. THAT IS BEFORE YOU ADD IN THE COSTS OF APPEALS AND KEEPING SOMEONE IN PRISON FOR THAT APPEALS PROCESS.

You want to cut costs? Stop using capital punishment. Period. Done. Hooray.

Now stop that Igo!

You're using facts and logic to argue your position!

You know that Diabhal's at a severe disadvantage when either of those two methods are introduced.

He's got no evidence and his thinking's about as sharp as a nerf ball, this is quite unfair of you to subject him to.

Let's get back to looking at things through the eyes of someone who fails to see the big picture, and argues for the short term gains at the expense of all the more important ones.

Diabhal, I apologize on behalf of Igo trying to unreasonably support his claims. Please go on blindly believing whatever crap you want. I'm stepping out of the big piece of dog shit this thread was from the beginning.

Justin

What about saving the surprise for the end? I fail to see how that could be unconstitutional.

Betty-I make no claim to be a legal expert, I'm just using common sense here.

Watch the flaming Justin.

Originally posted by Unrepresented
Now stop that Igo!

You're using facts and logic to argue your position!

You know that Diabhal's at a severe disadvantage when either of those two methods are introduced.

He's got no evidence and his thinking's about as sharp as a nerf ball, this is quite unfair of you to subject him to.

Let's get back to looking at things through the eyes of someone who fails to see the big picture, and argues for the short term gains at the expense of all the more important ones.

Diabhal, I apologize on behalf of Igo trying to unreasonably support his claims. Please go on blindly believing whatever crap you want. I'm stepping out of the big piece of dog shit this thread was from the beginning.

Justin OK ,Justin. Just stop right there. If you thought this thread was stupid from the beginning, why did you post so often in it? I'm not going to bite at your obvious violations of the rules. Back to the topic! Abolish death row!:werd:

OK ,Justin. Just stop right there. If you thought this thread was stupid from the beginning, why did you post so often in it?

Probably for the same reason I do, to witness your primal temper in action! :D

Originally posted by Betty
What about saving the surprise for the end? I fail to see how that could be unconstitutional.
I don't know. Would have to ask someone with experience in this field why that would/wouldn't work. It seems to me that if we sprung it on them at the end, after conviction, then we'd have to conduct EVERY trial as though it was a capital trial, thus increasing costs exponentially.

Originally posted by Betty
Alienation,
I appreciate you bringing up a good point that we're all sinners, but I don't go by the Christian moral system. Stealing a car or robbing a store is one thing, murder is another. Death is an acceptable punishment for that crime in my opinion. If it wasn't for women lying about rape, I would impose death for that too.

Of course that is an issue of values, while this thread is more based on money. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Betty,
Your unambiguousness about your morality is welcomed here. As you write, we will just have to agree to disagree about that.:)

Umm, so does anyone haveany idea how the appeals system could be improved?

Originally posted by Diabhal
Umm, so does anyone haveany idea how the appeals system could be improved?

One thing which immediately occurs to me is allowing DNA testing for every murder case. I saw a show on pbs not too long ago about a guy who was locked up in the South, whose family had raised something like twenty thousand dollars in order to have testing done so that he'd be released. I think this may have been a lifer rather than a rower, but in any case the state would not allow the test to be done even though the family was going to pay for it(!?!). Also, there should be reforms in investigative review of the findings of criminalists and crime lab workers. I don't know if anyone besides me, here, heard much about (I believe her name was) Joyce Gilchrist, but in any case, it turns out that over the course of years, in her job as criminalist, or something very much like that she turned in many many reports which were later proven to be based on shoddy scientific work which were then used to convict people. It took something like ten years to catch her, and in between the time she started and was caught, her testimony was instrumental in sending numerous people to prison. It was an outrage, I think most people would say, by even today's standards. I don't know, also, if anyone besides me, here, remembers Dennis Fung being shown to be incorrect about evidence handling in the OJ Simpson trial, but it seemed, as I recall, that had someone not been filming outside of OJ's house, he might have been convicted based upon the testimony of Dennis Fung who later was shown to have testified to something which was not in fact the case only because someone had videotaped him picking something up without gloves. In other words, if no one had videotaped him, OJ might be dead right now. Has the LAPD changed its evidence handling procedure? Probably, but what of the thousands of other police departments all over the country? I know evidence gathering and processing weren't exactly what you were asking about, but obviously, evidence can play a crucial role in a trial, so proper evidence gathering and processing seems obviously equally crucial to me.

Yes, I think DNA testing should be done. Not for every one, but just for the ones where people plead innocence. As for that lady doing shoddy scientific work, unfortunately these things happen. With the DAN testing, shoddy things will happen, but less often. If a DNA test proves conclusive, there's no need to have drawn out appeals and keep peole on death row at the taxpayer's expense.

Originally posted by Diabhal
Yes, I think DNA testing should be done. Not for every one, but just for the ones where people plead innocence. As for that lady doing shoddy scientific work, unfortunately these things happen. With the DAN testing, shoddy things will happen, but less often. If a DNA test proves conclusive, there's no need to have drawn out appeals and keep peole on death row at the taxpayer's expense.
I'm not supposed to debate in this forum. I agree with some of what you wrote.:)

Diabhal, this ought to make you happy. :|

I got the chance to talk to the unit manager of death row today and found out a few new things.

The amount of appeals for a death row inmate is unlimited. For an average sentence the appellate court will only review the evidence and topics brought up in the original trial. Nothing new can be introduced. Usually the appellate court will only review the case one or two times, then you're SOL.

This is not the case with death row. Death row is an exception to the rule. The convicted person can appeal as many times as he wants. He can also try different stratigies. For instance, he can introduce a new witness that wasn't in the original trial. He can try to have his case dismissed because of loopholes. Each new appeal takes approxamately 2-3 years to be heard, then either dismissed or accepted. If that appeal fails they file another on a different reason. They keep doing this until they either:
1. Get the sentence overturned to life in prison.
2. Get released from prison.
3. Die, either by execution or natural death.


Boy, I was way off with that 13 appeals thing. :eek: In essence I really was pretty close though. With a three year average on each appeal, and a man who was sentenced to death row at 25 years old, would serve 39 years in prison on death row. 39+25=64 years old. Not many inmates live past their mid 60's.

The question we should ask is "Why is death row the exception?" I don't see why. And why do these appeals take 2-3+ years to be heard?

Igo, you keep quoting that the INITIAL TRIAL is more expensive for a death row cases. Do you know why that is? Simply because the attorneys charge more. Why should a capital punishment case cost more than a life imprisonment case? That in itself is B.S.

As far as the appeal process, I think we need one, but there has to be limitations. The entire process is too lengthy.

Also the crap about white people being able to hire better lawyers and blacks being stuck with public defenders? PLEASE GET A F###ing LIFE! I have personally seen just as many whites using the PD as I have blacks. Every Public defender that I know is VERY competent and defends people that they know are guilty exceptionally well. The public defenders chose those jobs. They could easily become members of private practices and make a hellava lot more money, but chose to try and help the truly innocent people. Of course every prison is full of innocent people.
So, since I digress, it isn't a black or white thing it is a money thing. Statistically speaking it is the lower income folks that are committing the crimes to begin with.

Hell, yeah, we need Capital Punishment and we need to have the appeals process over hauled. I have never in my life heard the family member of a murdered child defending death row over capital punishment and until you have that experience, don't give me the Horsesh!t that it is inhumane. If you murder someone, I have only one thing for you, "You can find sorry between Sh!t and suicide in the dictionary."

Originally posted by Ponycar_302
I didn't misquote you. You misstated what you meant.

Abolish means to get rid of. If you abolish death row, that means you do away with it. What you want is something like a public hanging at 8:00 AM the next morning. That is still death row, they'll just spend a shorter time on it.


Ponycar.
My English is not that good.
The way I looked at the post was basically"abolish"
IE from the court straight in the Pony- car to the the place of death in stead of waiting for 15 years.

If I am right in my interpretation,yes I do agree to stop spending more money

In Zambia, I had as a friend-one eyed Jack- being the hangman and he did a sterling job-4 weeks and it was tickets.

Oke ,he made two mistakes by hanging an innocent one.
But 2 out of 560 is just a minor one.
The two hung,were due to the lying of the false witnesses.

Was this my friends fault????

He did suffer though mentally and gave up the job.


Rugen

Originally posted by Rugen



Ponycar.
My English is not that good.
The way I looked at the post was basically"abolish"
IE from the court straight in the Pony- car to the the place of death in stead of waiting for 15 years.

If I am right in my interpretation,yes I do agree to stop spending more money

In Zambia, I had as a friend-one eyed Jack- being the hangman and he did a sterling job-4 weeks and it was tickets.

Oke ,he made two mistakes by hanging an innocent one.
But 2 out of 560 is just a minor one.
The two hung,were due to the lying of the false witnesses.

Was this my friends fault????

He did suffer though mentally and gave up the job.


Rugen
You bring up a very good point. There's always going to be the occasional innocent who gets executed. Lowering that risk with appeals doesn't mean we need 50 appeals. 2 out of 560 isn't too bad.

Check this out, tell me if something isn't wrong with the system. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DRowInfo.html#year

But check this out. There has to be a more humane wat of conducting executions. Getting rid of the gas chamber and electric chair, perhaps? http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/botched.html

OK, I can only talk about Pennsylvania's death penality because it's all I'm familiar with. The other states may differ on their laws.

Diabhal is somewhat correct (please don't quote that Diab :D) in saying we should do away with the time spent in prison. The convicted should be allowed to appeal, but only once. They should have no more than two years for a retrial. Upon the retrial, if found guilty, they are executed at 8 AM the next morning. The retrial should not be allowed if there is no new evidence to present.

There should also not be a such thing as life in prison. Same goes with rediculous sentences like 50-100 years; or two 15-30's + a 10-20. The inmate won't live to see the end of the sentence, therefore they should be executed and save the taxpayer money.

These are my opinions, not laws.

Charged is correct. Somewhat rude, but correct.

In Pa we use lethal injection. I don't think anyone uses the electric chair or gas anymore, but I may be wrong.

I'm detectin g some sarcasm there, ponycar.

Not this time. I was actually being 100% friendly. :D

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/

Some interesting facts on this issue.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Pending/scheduled_executions.htm


Another view.