Financial crisis kills Death Penalty?

2009-02-18 04:24:31

#1

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6525|Brisneyland

The Australian wrote:
SEVERAL US states are considering abolishing the death penalty as the execution process proves too expensive amid tough financial times.

Death penalty laws remain on the books of 36 of the 50 US states, and capital punishment is supported by about two-thirds of the American public.

But across the nation, states as diverse and far-flung as Montana, Kansas, New Mexico and Maryland are among those actively considering abolishing capital punishment in a bid to overcome ballooning budget shortfalls.

The Australian wrote:
Carrying out the death penalty can leave a state footing a bill that is 10 times higher than for an inmate serving life imprisonment.

On top of a complex and lengthy process, appeals can last years and the prisoners are often represented by lawyers paid by the state.

Guarding death rows and death chambers are also costly items on a state's budget.

The Australian wrote:
Activists have calculated that in Kansas the cost of executing a prisoner is 70 per cent higher than keeping someone in prison. The bill for a death row inmate tops $US1.26 million, while for someone serving life imprisonment costs $US740,000 dollars, according to the Death Penalty Information Centre.

This is something I didnt expect as a result of the Fiancial Crisis. Of all the moral and ethical considerations of the death penalty, it is finally ended by the GFC.

Source

2009-02-18 04:58:27

#2

cl4u53w1t2: Salon-Bolschewist; +269|6776|Kakanien

abolishing the death penalty because of financal reasons is cynical

personally, i'm against the death penalty, but not because of moral/ethic reasons but because of the fact that there's always innocent people getting killed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0

2009-02-18 06:07:33

#3

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6924|London, England

Wait, so it costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life? Didn't know that

2009-02-18 06:20:11

#4

The#1Spot: Member; +105|6843|byah

WTH is is a prisioned inmate getting that much money in the first place?

2009-02-18 06:23:43

#5

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6968|NT, like Mick Dundee

Mek, all those appeals gotta cost more than a little.

The USA could pull a China and start billing the families of the accused/executed people. Then again I suppose you guys already have taxes.....

Last edited by Flecco (2009-02-18 06:26:11)

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-02-18 07:55:57

#6

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker

They're doing it wrong. One .308 to the brain isn't very expensive ...

2009-02-18 07:58:27

#7

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6803|so randum

Stingray24 wrote:
They're doing it wrong. One .308 to the brain isn't very expensive ...

tbh

If you're going to have the death penalty, make it quick - i think the Japs do it quite quickly

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-02-18 08:08:27

#8

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6005|College Park, MD

Stingray24 wrote:
They're doing it wrong. One .308 to the brain isn't very expensive ...

I'm not saying I don't agree, but the thing is you have to have a certain amount of the appeals process. I'd rather keep a criminal alive for 40 years when he should've been taking a dirt nap than kill an innocent man. With the advent of DNA evidence and such I think we will start seeing a major reduction in the amount of time it takes for a case to be appealed and found 100% guilty.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2009-02-18 08:10:03

#9

El Beardo: steel woolly mammoth; +150|6023|Gulf Coast

Stingray24 wrote:
They're doing it wrong. One .308 to the brain isn't very expensive ...

truth

Important

2009-02-18 08:15:55

#10

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker

DNA evidence should expedite the process. Much of the appeals process is a game to keep someone alive who is without any doubt guilty. When we get down to the execution, for some reason we're worried about the murderer suffering any pain because of "cruel and unusual punishment". .308 would take care of that bs.

2009-02-18 08:17:33

#11

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6771

Mekstizzle wrote:
Wait, so it costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life? Didn't know that

Court appeals. And most guys spend decades of Death Row before they get fragged.

2009-02-18 08:31:47

#12

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker

That's the problem, I don't think they execute by firing squad anymore. The justice system uses lethal injection because advocates for the criminals have howled anything else is cruel. This costs more because of the staff required to administer the lethal dosages.

2009-02-18 09:09:18

#13

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6771

Stingray24 wrote:
That's the problem, I don't think they execute by firing squad anymore. The justice system uses lethal injection because advocates for the criminals have howled anything else is cruel. This costs more because of the staff required to administer the lethal dosages.

Nah, lethal injection isn't the cause of the cost.

It's all in court fees, paying a states attoreny, judge, jury and other court room guys for an appeal eight times is way more expensive than paying guys to administer an injection once.

2009-02-18 09:12:10

#14

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6924|London, England

Stingray24 wrote:
That's the problem, I don't think they execute by firing squad anymore. The justice system uses lethal injection because advocates for the criminals have howled anything else is cruel. This costs more because of the staff required to administer the lethal dosages.

Dude, it's not the actual execution that's the problem, infact that's the easy part, so your little .308 idea isn't what's needed, it's everything before that. The court case, the lawyers etc.. and spending time on death row, that's the problem. Dunno why you keep on talking like it's the final bit that's the problem

2009-02-18 09:17:27

#15

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker

I fully understand the appeals process is the majority of the cost. However, my .308 is still cheaper than lethal injection. And it would be a bit more scary to face taking a bullet than an injection.

2009-02-18 12:20:10

#16

cl4u53w1t2: Salon-Bolschewist; +269|6776|Kakanien

FatherTed wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
They're doing it wrong. One .308 to the brain isn't very expensive ...
tbh

If you're going to have the death penalty, make it quick - i think the Japs do it quite quickly

kinda... they kill the convicts by hanging

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0

2009-02-18 12:22:34

#17

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7069|Cambridge (UK)

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
personally, i'm against the death penalty, but not because of moral/ethic reasons but because of the fact that there's always innocent people getting killed

if there's ever time this is appropriate, it's now:

ig wrote:
lol wut?

2009-02-18 15:37:42

#18

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6708|North Carolina

Shorten the appeals process. That would make the death penalty much cheaper.

Granted, I'm not a big fan of the death penalty myself.

2009-02-18 15:47:40

#19

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,983|6935|949

That'd be great. In California that (abolishment of the death penalty) will never happen because the Prison Guards union is far too powerful to let any legislation detrimental to their bottom line pass. We almost passed a proposition allocating $500 million a year minimum for the Department of Corrections Also, states like Texas where vigilante justice and "sending a message" are still championed probably won't abolish the death penalty any time soon either, so looks like this (death penalty ending) is just a pipe dream for now.

LOL at pro-life/pro-death penalty people.

2009-02-19 05:46:19

#20

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6714|'Murka

Mekstizzle wrote:
Wait, so it costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life? Didn't know that

Multiple required appeals. It's the legal fees more than the cost of imprisoning them.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-02-19 07:35:32

#21

13rin: Member; +977|6782

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That'd be great. In California that (abolishment of the death penalty) will never happen because the Prison Guards union is far too powerful to let any legislation detrimental to their bottom line pass. We almost passed a proposition allocating $500 million a year minimum for the Department of Corrections Also, states like Texas where vigilante justice and "sending a message" are still championed probably won't abolish the death penalty any time soon either, so looks like this (death penalty ending) is just a pipe dream for now.

LOL at pro-life/pro-death penalty people.

LOL at you equating unborn babies to hardend murders

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-02-19 17:37:29

#22

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6708|North Carolina

DBBrinson1 wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That'd be great. In California that (abolishment of the death penalty) will never happen because the Prison Guards union is far too powerful to let any legislation detrimental to their bottom line pass. We almost passed a proposition allocating $500 million a year minimum for the Department of Corrections Also, states like Texas where vigilante justice and "sending a message" are still championed probably won't abolish the death penalty any time soon either, so looks like this (death penalty ending) is just a pipe dream for now.

LOL at pro-life/pro-death penalty people.
LOL at you equating unborn babies to hardend murders

A better demonstration of the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement is how many pro-lifers are avidly against abortion but are also against spending more on orphanages and helping out single parents more (2 things that would be essential to dealing with an abortion ban).

2009-02-19 17:44:10

#23

Warhammer: Member; +18|5984

Turquoise wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That'd be great. In California that (abolishment of the death penalty) will never happen because the Prison Guards union is far too powerful to let any legislation detrimental to their bottom line pass. We almost passed a proposition allocating $500 million a year minimum for the Department of Corrections Also, states like Texas where vigilante justice and "sending a message" are still championed probably won't abolish the death penalty any time soon either, so looks like this (death penalty ending) is just a pipe dream for now.

LOL at pro-life/pro-death penalty people.
LOL at you equating unborn babies to hardend murders
A better demonstration of the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement is how many pro-lifers are avidly against abortion but are also against spending more on orphanages and helping out single parents more (2 things that would be essential to dealing with an abortion ban).

Do you have facts supporting this? I am actually curious.

2009-02-19 17:52:40

#24

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6708|North Carolina

Warhammer wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:

LOL at you equating unborn babies to hardend murders
A better demonstration of the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement is how many pro-lifers are avidly against abortion but are also against spending more on orphanages and helping out single parents more (2 things that would be essential to dealing with an abortion ban).
Do you have facts supporting this? I am actually curious.

Well, it really comes down to common sense.

If you remove the option of abortion, unplanned pregnancies aren't going to stop.

Women will have to make one of 3 choices with an unplanned pregnancy:

1) raise the kid herself (with or without a partner/spouse)
2) put the kid up for adoption
3) get a back alley abortion

1 & 2 will be more common in their occurrence. 2 will go up considerably if abortion is banned.

As for the evidence of the pro-life movement being against spending more on orphanages.... well, ask the average religious conservative what their feelings on social programs are.

The point is... inevitably, an abortion ban will lead to bigger government than we already have -- something that contradicts much of the conservative ideal.

2009-02-19 17:57:09

#25

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,983|6935|949

DBBrinson1 wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That'd be great. In California that (abolishment of the death penalty) will never happen because the Prison Guards union is far too powerful to let any legislation detrimental to their bottom line pass. We almost passed a proposition allocating $500 million a year minimum for the Department of Corrections Also, states like Texas where vigilante justice and "sending a message" are still championed probably won't abolish the death penalty any time soon either, so looks like this (death penalty ending) is just a pipe dream for now.

LOL at pro-life/pro-death penalty people.
LOL at you equating unborn babies to hardend murders

Does it matter?
I didn't equate anything, I am pointing out that pro-lifers for the death penalty are actually pro-life and pro-death. That makes me LOL. Did I strike a nerve or something?

BF2S Forums Financial crisis kills Death Penalty?

The Australian wrote:

The Australian wrote:

The Australian wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

ig wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Warhammer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Board footer