Innocent Man Killed By The Texas Government

[Edcrab]

Beats me. I agree with capital punishment in principle- because there are people in this world that are utterly beyond rehabiliation- but since our justice system is not infallible I can't really support it.

That said, I still think repeat offenders and the likes of Ian Huntley should just be shot. It's cheaper in the long run, and society won't miss them.

/end fascist

 

[JNightshade]

Ok. So someone is beyond rehabilitation. Do you KILL THEM for it? No! I'm sorry, but if they're beyond rehabilitation, you lock them up for the rest of their lives so they can't hurt anyone. I firmly believe that the government does not have the right to decide who lives or dies- no one does.*

*abortion is a completely separate matter here- it is NOT murder.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Ok. So someone is beyond rehabilitation. Do you KILL THEM for it? No! I'm sorry, but if they're beyond rehabilitation, you lock them up for the rest of their lives so they can't hurt anyone. I firmly believe that the government does not have the right to decide who lives or dies- no one does.*

*abortion is a completely separate matter here- it is NOT murder.

Do you realize that people go insane from sitting in cells? There is a reason prisoners try to kill themselves and go insnae. Life in prison can be worse than the death penalty. What is left in life for those people but to be tortured by time? IMO that is cruel.

I think the prisoner should be given the choice whether or not he wants the death penalty or life in prison. If hes innocent he will choose life until he is innocent. If he is guilty and doesn't want to rot in a cell he will choose death.

 

[kirovman]

Beats me. I agree with capital punishment in principle- because there are people in this world that are utterly beyond rehabiliation- but since our justice system is not infallible I can't really support it.

That said, I still think repeat offenders and the likes of Ian Huntley should just be shot. It's cheaper in the long run, and society won't miss them.

/end fascist

That's more or less my point of view. Some people don't deserve to be part of society, but the system has flaws, and innocents will inevitably die, which is why I cannot support it.

I'm not someone who puts a sacred value on the lives of monsterous criminals, but I do value the lives of innocent people very much, and we can't afford to kill the wrong people.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

IMO that is cruel.

Death is the ultimate torture. Staring at your eyelids for eternity would also make you go bonko.

 

[Edcrab]

I only cited killing people beyond rehabilitation because they're dead weight.

Pardon my elitist ramblings, but there's something inherently unfair in the idea that we should spend £20k a year on pampering a violent career criminal, instead of trying to benefit the needy.

Execution is no cheaper- but if it was, there'd be one more reason for me to (guiltily) accept its uses.

If a life sentence actually meant a life sentence, and we didn't spend so damn much on the criminal elements, I'd be hard pressed to fault the prison system.

[startbastard] But we've got overcrowded prisons- another reason to start culling murderers! [/endbastard]

 

[Glirk Dient]

That's more or less my point of view. Some people don't deserve to be part of society, but the system has flaws, and innocents will inevitably die, which is why I cannot support it.

I'm not someone who puts a sacred value on the lives of monsterous criminals, but I do value the lives of innocent people very much, and we can't afford to kill the wrong people.

Mind you the posted article IS 12 years old. Criminal technology has changed so much since then. I would like to see a more recent case because I am pretty sure it is incredibly unlikely someone will get framed these days.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Edcrab brings up a very good point ...

 

[Sulkdodds]

Mind you the posted article IS 12 years old. Criminal technology has changed so much since then. I would like to see a more recent case because I am pretty sure it is incredibly unlikely someone will get framed these days.

But like I've already said, I don't think the technology has nearly as much to do with it as human corruption. And do you see that changing any time soon?

 

[Glirk Dient]

But like I've already said, I don't think the technology has nearly as much to do with it as human corruption. And do you see that changing any time soon?

No that is also a good point. There is nothing that can be done about human corruption. However the various technological discoveries that help in crime investigation will greatly lessen it since we can pinpoint where bullets came from, DNA traces...all kinds of facts so we don't have to rely on someone blaming someone else.

 

[Shippi]

.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

If criminals believe in the penalty of death (taking someone's life), I believe our Justice system should believe in it (lethal injection).

 

[CptStern]

it does nothing to deter crime, it cost far more to put someone to death ....so what exactly is the point here? ...retribution plain and simple ...for a country with an emerging religious moral center you really are a study in contrasts

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Actually stern, killing someone costs nothing. But keeping them alive means you have to feed them, keep them warm, provide them bedding, waste cleaning materials to make sure their bedding is'int dirty or carrying diseases, make sure they get shots against flus, you have to allow them phone calls, TV's to watch, which cost electricity, give them consoling courses, which come under the cost of the prison itself, etc. etc.

The corpse of a prisoner does not need the following (but a "live" prisoner does need it to feel happy and survive!):

1. Bed
2. Toilet
3. Care
4. Money
5. Rehabillitation
6. Food
7. Attention
8. Glasses
9. Educational Material
10. Consoling
11. Arts and Entertainment to keep the prisoners minds of random bullcrap
12. Phone Calls
13. Medical Attention when hurt or diseased
14. Water
15. Lights
16. Overall, electricity ...
17. Control
18. Security
19. Time
20. Cell

A corpse needs nothing; therefore, its the most cost efficient way to go ... and there are some people that can't be rehabillated -- cough*Bush*cough

 

[No Limit]

Actually stern, killing someone costs nothing. But keeping them alive means you have to feed them, keep them warm, provide them bedding, waste cleaning materials to make sure their bedding is'int dirty or carrying diseases, make sure they get shots against flus, you have to allow them phone calls, TV's to watch, which cost electricity, give them consoling courses, which come under the cost of the prison itself, etc. etc.

A corpse needs nothing; therefore, its the most cost efficient way to go ... and there are some people that can't be rehabillated -- cough*Bush*cough

It costs a lot more to execute someone than to keep them alive after all the appeals take place. Look it up.

None of those involve accidental death sentences. People stealing TVs getting life? There has to be much more than that. Such as previous crime(murders) that the person commited that never got caught and when they got him for stealing a TV they also grabbed the guilty man for that. It would be absurd if someone gets life for just stealing a TV.

Look up the 3 strikes law. I just posted about this a couple months ago; a guy got 27 years in prison for staling a tv. Before that he had 2 drug convictions.

Well now they have phorensics and DNA testing and all kinds of junk so it's a lot harder to frame someone.

"All kinds of junk", as you described it, doesn't apply here. He was killed based on 1 eye witness; DNA testing would not have applied here. The system in that regard is no different today.

 

[SAJ]

The State of Kansas recently issued a report estimating the costs of the death penalty in that state: “Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections,” (December 2003).

Conclusions

The estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
Items:
The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.
The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 per death case; $32,000 per non-death case).
The appeal costs for death cases were about 21 times greater.
The costs of carrying out a death sentence (including death row incarceration) were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.
Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.
For death sentence cases, the pre-trial and trial level costs were the most expensive parts: 49% of the total costs. The costs of appeals were 29% of the total, and incarceration and execution costs accounted for the remaining 22% of the total.

Full report: http://www.kslegislature.org/postaudit/audits_perform/04pa03a.pdf