Is One Cheaper Than The Other?

[MJS]

http://www.courant.com/news/nation-world/sns-ap-us-home-invasion,0,7993619.story

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — A Connecticut man convicted of murdering a woman and her two daughters in a home invasion will try to avoid the death penalty by arguing that executions cost taxpayers more than life sentences.

Attorneys for Steven Hayes filed papers Friday in New Haven Superior Court saying they intend to call an expert who would testify that carrying out a death sentence far exceeds the cost of a life sentence.

I am not looking to discuss the home invasion case. There is already a thread on that, so lets keep those discussions there. What I'm looking to discuss here, are the attorneys debates, for which is more costly...the death penalty or keeping someone alive, in prison, for the rest of their life.

 

[Big Don]

if each person sentenced to death was executed in a timely manner, rather than after 10 to 30 years of endless, taxpayer funded appeals of various merit, capital punishment would be much cheaper

 

[elder999]

if each person sentenced to death was executed in a timely manner, rather than after 10 to 30 years of endless, taxpayer funded appeals of various merit, capital punishment would be much cheaper

And this-minus the costs of appeals, court, "death row,"and the execution itself-is, essentially, life imprisonment, so the argument doesn't have much merit, given that-either way-life ends.

 

[Bruno@MT]

if each person sentenced to death was executed in a timely manner, rather than after 10 to 30 years of endless, taxpayer funded appeals of various merit, capital punishment would be much cheaper

There would also be even more innocent people wrongfully executed.
But please don't let that stand in the way of your thirst for vengeance.

Or you could make the judicial system work at a reasonable speed instead of glacial speed so that the reasonable appeals and motions could be completed in a timely manner. In that case I might agree with you.

 

[Bruno@MT]

And this-minus the costs of appeals, court, "death row,"and the execution itself-is, essentially, life imprisonment, so the argument doesn't have much merit, given that-either way-life ends.

Well... yes.
But that argument could also be used to justify manslaughter. After all, a killer doesn't do anything that would not have happened otherwise. Sometimes even more human than how nature would have done it.
So it's an argument that cuts both ways.

 

[elder999]

Well... yes.
But that argument could also be used to justify manslaughter. After all, a killer doesn't do anything that would not have happened otherwise. Sometimes even more human than how nature would have done it.
So it's an argument that cuts both ways.

Life ends. That's not any argument, just the statement of what should be an obvious fact. :lfao:

Some more facts: the average cost per prisoner in the U.S. is somewhere north of $20K/year. It's somewhat higher for a death-row inmate, and this is the lawyers argument: that it would be cheaper to sentence him to life in prison without parole than it would be to go through all the histrionics of getting him to whatever method of execution they employ in Connecticut-it's somewhat specious, because it's entirely possible that all appeals would be exhausted in far less than Don's proposed 20 years.

(That's the argument: that either way, taxpayers are paying $20K or more to feed, clothe, and care for this dirtbag until he dies.)

Of course, this is Connecticut, not Texas or Florida.

 

[MJS]

if each person sentenced to death was executed in a timely manner, rather than after 10 to 30 years of endless, taxpayer funded appeals of various merit, capital punishment would be much cheaper

Agreed. And in the perfect world, this would be nice. But, we have the BHC (Bleeding Hearts Club) that gets involved, the chance of someone wrongfully getting killed. Of course, one has to wonder...if the investigators did a good enough job investigating, would the odds of someone wrongfully getting killed, go down?

 

[MJS]

Thought this was interesting.
http://www.ct.gov/doc/cwp/view.asp?a=1505&q=265600


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/sources-and-additional-information

 

[Archangel M]

Neither of these two are "innocent". I'd sleep well at night if I were tasked to flip the switch on these wastes of my oxygen. So my thirst for vengeance would be well satiated in this case.

 

[MJS]

Neither of these two are "innocent". I'd sleep well at night if I were tasked to flip the switch on these wastes of my oxygen. So my thirst for vengeance would be well satiated in this case.

Ditto! The next phase is supposed to start soon, and the other scumbag is supposed to be on trial next year. Hopefully that jury will find him guilty just like the first scumbag was.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I look at the Death Penalty from a slightly different angle, even though I consider other facts such as cost of incarceration versus cost of execution.

First; what is the purpose of incarceration?

Some say it is punishment. Some say it is to provide some measure of rehabilitation. Some say it is to provide a deterrent. Some say it is to separate the dangerous people from the rest of society. I go with that third meaning, myself. I'm not interested in vengeance, and I do not believe meaningful rehabilitation in our society is possible given our history of failure at it.

Given that the purpose of incarceration (to me) is simply to separate the dangerous people from the masses, I do think that cost-benefit analysis is a reasonable way to look at things.

However, such data is not readily available. The GAO said in 1989 that "Federal data on the cost of implementing existing death penalty provisions are nonexistent... At the state level, cost data are limited... Few of these states have data on death penalty costs and even when available, the data were incomplete."

Now, let's consider another notable aspect of our legal system, which also plays into the Death Penalty versus Life Imprisonment argument; due process. This is directly tied to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

When we speak of terminating the rights of a person sentenced to death in favor of a speedy execution, we speak of terminating our own rights. If a person is not entitled to the best and most complete legal review to ensure that his rights (and our rights) have not been breached, when is it MORE appropriate? Imagining ourselves in a similar situation, and assuming for the moment that we were, in fact, innocent; would we simply shrug our shoulders, accept our fate, and say "The State's Will be done?" Or would we fight with whatever resources we could bring to bear to free ourselves from our predicament?

As much as I understand that the costs of lengthy delays and extended reviews of death penalty cases and seemingly endless appeals, I would still prefer that to the curtailing of rights that are very explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights.

As to life-without-parole as an alternative to Capital Punishment, I would also consider that a live person can escape and threaten society again, no matter how remote that chance might be. A dead person can no longer harm anyone.

Given all of this, I think it's a tossup. I'm not against Capital Punishment, and if it takes years and costs bundles, well so be it; these are MY rights we're talking about, not just the rights of some criminal scum. If a state chooses not to have the Death Penalty (Michigan does not), then I guess that's fine too. Just make sure they stay locked the hell up.

 

[MJS]

I look at the Death Penalty from a slightly different angle, even though I consider other facts such as cost of incarceration versus cost of execution.

First; what is the purpose of incarceration?

Some say it is punishment. Some say it is to provide some measure of rehabilitation. Some say it is to provide a deterrent. Some say it is to separate the dangerous people from the rest of society. I go with that third meaning, myself. I'm not interested in vengeance, and I do not believe meaningful rehabilitation in our society is possible given our history of failure at it.

Given that the purpose of incarceration (to me) is simply to separate the dangerous people from the masses, I do think that cost-benefit analysis is a reasonable way to look at things.

However, such data is not readily available. The GAO said in 1989 that "Federal data on the cost of implementing existing death penalty provisions are nonexistent... At the state level, cost data are limited... Few of these states have data on death penalty costs and even when available, the data were incomplete."

Now, let's consider another notable aspect of our legal system, which also plays into the Death Penalty versus Life Imprisonment argument; due process. This is directly tied to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments:





When we speak of terminating the rights of a person sentenced to death in favor of a speedy execution, we speak of terminating our own rights. If a person is not entitled to the best and most complete legal review to ensure that his rights (and our rights) have not been breached, when is it MORE appropriate? Imagining ourselves in a similar situation, and assuming for the moment that we were, in fact, innocent; would we simply shrug our shoulders, accept our fate, and say "The State's Will be done?" Or would we fight with whatever resources we could bring to bear to free ourselves from our predicament?

As much as I understand that the costs of lengthy delays and extended reviews of death penalty cases and seemingly endless appeals, I would still prefer that to the curtailing of rights that are very explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights.

As to life-without-parole as an alternative to Capital Punishment, I would also consider that a live person can escape and threaten society again, no matter how remote that chance might be. A dead person can no longer harm anyone.

Given all of this, I think it's a tossup. I'm not against Capital Punishment, and if it takes years and costs bundles, well so be it; these are MY rights we're talking about, not just the rights of some criminal scum. If a state chooses not to have the Death Penalty (Michigan does not), then I guess that's fine too. Just make sure they stay locked the hell up.

Points taken Bill. Let me ask your opinion on this please: During the initial trial, which I followed daily on the news and in the paper (for what thats worth..lol) it seems like all evidence with the excpetion of 1 charge, was pointing at the suspect. So, trial ends, with suspect #1 found as guilty.

He is then moved to the next phase, which will determine whether he gets life or death. Lets assume he gets death. My question is: how many appeals do we give this person before any action is decided upon? 5yrs, 20yrs? Do you feel that we should ever limit the time? I mean, this could go on and on, and eventually, theres a chance the person could die naturally.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Does a surgeon give a cancerous tumor 20 years to consume its host before removing it?

 

[MJS]

Does a surgeon give a cancerous tumor 20 years to consume its host before removing it?

God I'd hope not. LOL. This is why I say that if you must appeal, then set some sort of time frame, ie: 4 appeals, 1yr, etc. I mean really....if people can't figure things out by that time.......

Whats that saying..."**** or get off the pot!" LOL.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

He is then moved to the next phase, which will determine whether he gets life or death. Lets assume he gets death. My question is: how many appeals do we give this person before any action is decided upon? 5yrs, 20yrs? Do you feel that we should ever limit the time? I mean, this could go on and on, and eventually, theres a chance the person could die naturally.

I have several feelings about this issue, and I can't say I'm 100% one way or the other. But I can tell you what thoughts are in my head as I consider this.

First, the DP is the ultimate penalty. There's no coming back, and no way to correct a mistake. Therefore, it makes sense that a state would wish to go to great lengths to ensure that everything was done properly, that all i's were dotted and t's were crossed, before imposing that sentence. If I were incorrectly convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to die, I would hope I'd have some opportunity to address the issue.

Second, although each state is different, the appeal process is not endless; if it were, there would be no executions at all. There comes a time when all appeals are exhausted and the sentence of death is imposed.

There are people who have been sentenced to death who were later found to be innocent and were released. If they had not been still alive at the time of the finding of innocence, what then?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

And third, while I do not hew to the ACLU line or adopt all their reasoning, I do accept their argument that a sentence of LWOP is a death sentence. The person who receives a LWOP sentence will die in prison. In the meantime, that prisoner will be general population, which is a much more dangerous and perhaps miserable situation than being on Death Row. Prisoners sentenced to LWOP do not get automatic appeals as DP sentences do, nor are they provided with free legal support as convicts sentenced to the DP are. We basically toss them into hell, lock the door, and walk away. The ACLU of Northern California says that NO prisoner in the USA sentenced to LWOP has ever been released or been granted parole. I don't know if that's true, but that's what the ACLU says.

I have to keep remembering that my rage at people who commit heinous acts is not a consideration (even though my gut demands it anyway). Satisfying rage or obtaining revenge does not make society any safer, and making society safer is the role of government, not being in the revenge business. If government's job is remove the dangerous element from our society, then LWOP does that. Is there any function served beyond that by imposing the DP instead?

From what I understand, we're talking about 1,000 or so people put to death in the USA since it was renewed in the 1970's. While it may seem ridiculous that those sentenced to death get what seems like endless appeals, the number of people that this applies to is actually quite small. I'm not sure it's a major issue that it takes years to get these convictions through the system, compared to the knowledge that those who are eventually executed are in fact guilty as hell and deserve exactly what they're getting.

 

[MJS]

I have several feelings about this issue, and I can't say I'm 100% one way or the other. But I can tell you what thoughts are in my head as I consider this.

First, the DP is the ultimate penalty. There's no coming back, and no way to correct a mistake. Therefore, it makes sense that a state would wish to go to great lengths to ensure that everything was done properly, that all i's were dotted and t's were crossed, before imposing that sentence. If I were incorrectly convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to die, I would hope I'd have some opportunity to address the issue.

Agreed. But if we look at the info on the link, we see 100+ people who were wrongly convicted, so that tells me, that the state didn't cross the Ts and dot the I's, as close as they should have. I do feel that it is a shame that someone sits, wasting years of their life, in a cell, for something they didn't do. But I still can't believe that in some cases, it took 20yrs before someone said, "Hmm..ya know what...I think someone screwed up along the way here." I mean, yeah, its great that they found the screw-up, but it took that long?!?!

Second, although each state is different, the appeal process is not endless; if it were, there would be no executions at all. There comes a time when all appeals are exhausted and the sentence of death is imposed.

Any idea as to what the time frame is? I honestly have no idea.

There are people who have been sentenced to death who were later found to be innocent and were released. If they had not been still alive at the time of the finding of innocence, what then?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

Chances are, a lawsuit would be brought on by the estate of the person. Then again, there've been cases, 1 for example, right in CT, in which a man sat in prison (can't recall if he was on death row or not) was found innocent, after sitting for years, and was given a large sum of money, by the state, for the mistake.

And third, while I do not hew to the ACLU line or adopt all their reasoning, I do accept their argument that a sentence of LWOP is a death sentence. The person who receives a LWOP sentence will die in prison. In the meantime, that prisoner will be general population, which is a much more dangerous and perhaps miserable situation than being on Death Row. Prisoners sentenced to LWOP do not get automatic appeals as DP sentences do, nor are they provided with free legal support as convicts sentenced to the DP are. We basically toss them into hell, lock the door, and walk away. The ACLU of Northern California says that NO prisoner in the USA sentenced to LWOP has ever been released or been granted parole. I don't know if that's true, but that's what the ACLU says.

I can agree with this. Question: Why do people who get the DP get numerous appeals and people who get LWOP, dont? Of course, I have to wonder what the ACLUs response to prison overcrowding is. I mean, I'm sure that when they catch wind of the 'horrible' conditions the inmates are subjected to, because of this......

Is the answer build more prisons? I'm fine with that. It'll create jobs and eliminate or at least cut down on the overcrowding. But then you have, what the late George Carlin used to call NIMBY....Not In My Back Yard. Build more prisons....but not here. LOL!

If the 2 bags of trash that killed that family, get spared the DP, then I say lock 'em up and lose the key.

I have to keep remembering that my rage at people who commit heinous acts is not a consideration (even though my gut demands it anyway). Satisfying rage or obtaining revenge does not make society any safer, and making society safer is the role of government, not being in the revenge business. If government's job is remove the dangerous element from our society, then LWOP does that. Is there any function served beyond that by imposing the DP instead?

True.

From what I understand, we're talking about 1,000 or so people put to death in the USA since it was renewed in the 1970's. While it may seem ridiculous that those sentenced to death get what seems like endless appeals, the number of people that this applies to is actually quite small. I'm not sure it's a major issue that it takes years to get these convictions through the system, compared to the knowledge that those who are eventually executed are in fact guilty as hell and deserve exactly what they're getting.

Points taken.

 

[MJS]

Some interesting tidbits in this article:

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-death-penalty-poll-1013-20101013,0,3819400.story

"My opinion on the death penalty is it's a case-by-case basis," said Joanna Stavrides of North Haven. "In terms of the Cheshire home invasion, I think it's absolutely necessary and I'm totally in favor of it. But … each case is going to be different — so if it's required, if it's needed, if it's valid, then I think that's a good thing, I'm in favor of that. And if it's not, then life in prison is punishment enough for them."

And this is where alot of debate comes in. What case I feel the DP is worthy of, someone else may not, and so on and so on and so on. Maybe this is why there're so many appeals. Maybe we should have set circumstances for the DP. If A, B, and C happens, it meets the protocol.

Nine prisoners now are on death row at Connecticut's "super-max" prison in Somers. The longest-serving, at 21 years, is Robert Breton, who was sentenced to death in October 1989 for the beating and stabbing deaths of his ex-wife and son. The last person executed in the state, in 2005, was Michael Ross, who strangled six young women in the 1980s.

21 years before he was given the DP??Nine prisoners now are on death row at Connecticut's "super-max" prison in Somers. The longest-serving, at 21 years, is Robert Breton, who was sentenced to death in October 1989 for the beating and stabbing deaths of his ex-wife and son. The last person executed in the state, in 2005, was Michael Ross, who strangled six young women in the 1980s.

Nine prisoners now are on death row at Connecticut's "super-max" prison in Somers. The longest-serving, at 21 years, is Robert Breton, who was sentenced to death in October 1989 for the beating and stabbing deaths of his ex-wife and son. The last person executed in the state, in 2005, was Michael Ross, who strangled six young women in the 1980s.

21 years before he was given the DP!!!! WOW!!! And look at the time frame between that one and the most recent. Given the time frame, maybe they should've just kept their asses locked up for LWOP.

 

[Archangel M]

And this is where alot of debate comes in. What case I feel the DP is worthy of, someone else may not, and so on and so on and so on. Maybe this is why there're so many appeals. Maybe we should have set circumstances for the DP. If A, B, and C happens, it meets the protocol.

I have always thought the same thing. How difficult would it be to select protocols for various appeal limitations. Guys like this...caught red handed leaving the murder scene, an eye witness survivor and a confession? Straight to the death chamber. A case built entirely on circumstantial evidence and no body? Life in prison as the only option. Etc.