Rick Perry's Response to European Criticism of Texas Death Penalty

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

of all the countries, I think Jamaica is unquestionably the place I'd most like to be executed.

hey mon, do you think I can have one last toke before you hang me?

No problem, mon !!!!!

[alexamenos]

regurgitating alex's theme.....

....if someone really wants to make an argument against the death penalty, they really need to argue that it's wrong for the State to execute a guilty person....

....I'm talking about a Hannibal Lector/Son of Sam type who we're 100% absolutely rock-solid certain is guilty. Tell me why it's wrong to execute a guy that we know raped and murdered four little girls and then feasted upon their entrails.

Every argument short of this is boils down the same ole Left-Liberal trope about how unfair the world is for blacks and poor people.

....

incidentally...good to see the point about "an eye for an eye" really being a restriction upon punishments and not a call for greater vengeance. It's solid point about the ole saying being a call for proportionality in punishment, and I'd only add that the death penalty is arguably quite proportionate in capital cases.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I have a very simple question for you:

The intention of a punishment should be the protection of the population. A lifelong imprisonment would serve the same purpose.

So why the death penalty?

Is it because of deterrence?
Very disputed and lifelong imprisonment should also do the trick.

Is it because of vengeance?
Vengeance doesn´t belong to penal law.

Is it because of a fair punishment?
Biblical approach: "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"; a regression to middle ages and misinterpretation of this biblical text.

Ethnically dubiousness:
I can answer for killing a killer?
If the convicted executed is innocent... I am a killer!
Equality between black man and white man?

Also in many countries, even in USA, you can be convicted to a death penalty not only for homicide but also for brutal heist, rape and in china even for tax fraud and corruption.

Think about it!!!

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Every argument short of this is boils down the same ole Left-Liberal trope about how unfair the world is for blacks and poor people.

In the United States, it's a simple fact that poor people are more likely to be executed when convicted than are rich people, and that black people are more likely to be executed when convicted than are white people.

Are you suggesting that this just how the world works and that anyone who doesn't think that is right and that it should be changed just doesn't understand that life isn't fair? That would be pretty cynical.

Believing that the death penalty is unfairly applied does not necessarily mean that one opposes the use of death penalty when it is more fairly applied. This is the whole point of the call for a moratorium, to get support from both people who oppose the death penalty and people who do not oppose it in principle, but oppose how it is applied.

....if someone really wants to make an argument against the death penalty, they really need to argue that it's wrong for the State to execute a guilty person....

And many have made this argument. But that doesn't mean there is something wrong with them seeking support for a moratorium from people who feel that the death penalty is merely unfairly applied.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

The intention of a punishment should be the protection of the population.....

I don't quite agree with this. That is to say, one component of punishment is the protection of the population, but that is not the only component.

For instance, the population would be equally well-protected if a murderer were to be exiled to a tropical island furnished with an XBOX 360, a 9 hole golf course and a lifetime supply of porn. Few, however, would argue that this is justice.

The punishment is a....ummm.....a meta-statement on the culture's view of the laws it purports to uphold. That is, the punishment is how we say "we expect our fellow citizens to uphold the law, and we really mean business."*

...A lifelong imprisonment would serve the same purpose.

So why the death penalty?

because we expect our fellow citizens to uphold the law, and we really mean business.

addendum....

people routinely say that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but how can you measure anything related to crimes not committed? that is, how do you ascertain the motivations and deterrence thereto of criminals who never committed a crime?

also....I realize that murders and such may be more prevalent where the capital punishment exists, but then again prohibitions against goat-fucking are most common in societies with lots of goat-herders and practically non-existent in goatless societies. That is.....the laws and punishments are often a reflection of the society, and not the other way around.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

In the United States, it's a simple fact that poor people are more likely to be executed when convicted than are rich people, and that black people are more likely to be executed when convicted than are white people.

Are you suggesting that this just how the world works and that anyone who doesn't think that is right and that it should be changed just doesn't understand that life isn't fair? That would be pretty cynical.

Believing that the death penalty is unfairly applied does not necessarily mean that one opposes the use of death penalty when it is more fairly applied. This is the whole point of the call for a moratorium, to get support from both people who oppose the death penalty and people who do not oppose it in principle, but oppose how it is applied.

....emphasis added....

I think it's fair to surmise that the phrase "more fairly applied" does not suggest that you can only go along with a death penalty when our justice systems reaches some utopian state of perfect justice....

that is, implicitly people who argue for a moratorium on the death penalty acknowledge some tolerance for inequity, much as those who argue against a moratorium on the death penalty accept some risk. hence, the disagreement boils down to some arbitrary disagreements over how much tolerance we have for imperfections and inequity, which is why the argument so often falls on deaf ears.

that is to say, I'm sorry that more rich white dudes aren't executed, but I don't see this as reason to unplug the electric chair.

and many have made this argument..

sorta...Dr. Z. is making the effort, but I frankly think he has some work to do.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I have a very simple question for you:

The intention of a punishment should be the protection of the population. A lifelong imprisonment would serve the same purpose.

Well "if" the administration of the death penalty deters others, this is also protecting the population.

Also the well-being of the remaining friends/family/community after said monster has been given humane lethal injection is also to be considrered. i.e. Vengence.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

In the United States, it's a simple fact that poor people are more likely to be executed when convicted than are rich people, and that black people are more likely to be executed when convicted than are white people.

Are you suggesting that this just how the world works and that anyone who doesn't think that is right and that it should be changed just doesn't understand that life isn't fair? That would be pretty cynical.

Believing that the death penalty is unfairly applied does not necessarily mean that one opposes the use of death penalty when it is more fairly applied. This is the whole point of the call for a moratorium, to get support from both people who oppose the death penalty and people who do not oppose it in principle, but oppose how it is applied.


And many have made this argument. But that doesn't mean there is something wrong with them seeking support for a moratorium from people who feel that the death penalty is merely unfairly applied.

All poor people lose more court cases than richer people. I also would like to see this taken out of a vacuum. If the poor person is a crack dealer, looks like a crack dealer and talks like a crack dealer, has friends who are crack dealers, etc.... versus someone who appears to be a banker.

Yea..sucks but they aren't going to get much leniency from the JURY OF THEIR PEERS.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

All poor people lose more court cases than richer people. I also would like to see this taken out of a vacuum. If the poor person is a crack dealer, looks like a crack dealer and talks like a crack dealer, has friends who are crack dealers, etc.... versus someone who appears to be a banker.

Yea..sucks but they aren't going to get much leniency from the JURY OF THEIR PEERS.

which is to say that Justice isn't so much blind as she is near-sighted.....

...and I prefer near-sighted justice to no justice.

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

....emphasis added....

I think it's fair to surmise that the phrase "more fairly applied" does not suggest that you can only go along with a death penalty when our justice systems reaches some utopian state of perfect justice....

that is, implicitly people who argue for a moratorium on the death penalty acknowledge some tolerance for inequity, much as those who argue against a moratorium on the death penalty accept some risk. hence, the disagreement boils down to some arbitrary disagreements over how much tolerance we have for imperfections and inequity, which is why the argument so often falls on deaf ears.

that is to say, I'm sorry that more rich white dudes aren't executed, but I don't see this as reason to unplug the electric chair.



sorta...Dr. Z. is making the effort, but I frankly think he has some work to do.

That's all fair enough. But I do think many people do think the electric chair should be temporarily unplugged until the system can be made not perfect or utopian, but at least significantly more fair than it is now. Former Supreme Court Justice Blackman was one of them.
With regard to "the disagreement boils down to some arbitrary disagreements over how much tolerance we have for imperfections and inequity", I see your point, but I don't see a problem with anyone saying "it's not fair enough right now" even without having a complete understanding of exactly how fair it would need to be. That's not my view; I would oppose it even if it were "applied fairly," but I don't think the other view is unreasonable.

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

which is to say that Justice isn't so much blind as she is near-sighted.....

...and I prefer near-sighted justice to no justice.

I would prefer near-sighted justice to no justice as well. I don't think you would get any argument form anyone on that. But the need for justice should not become an excuse to settle for less justice than can be achieved.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

That's not my view; I would oppose it even if it were "applied fairly," but I don't think the other view is unreasonable.

I don't think I'd so much say that *the other view* is unreasonable. Rather, I've been careful in saying that the other view is unpersuasive....that is, it ain't that I think the other view has no point, it's just that the point isn't enough to make me change my mind.

I find view that the death penalty ought to be abolished even if applied fairly to be much more rigorously rational and principled, even if it is a harder sale from an emotional standpoint.

cheers

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

I would prefer near-sighted justice to no justice as well. I don't think you would get any argument form anyone on that. But the need for justice should not become an excuse to settle for less justice than can be achieved.

certainly....cheers

[purplefrog]

I don't like the death penalty. I believe it is the equivalent of state-sponsored murder and imo: state-sponsored murder = bad karma. Irrational perhaps, but nonetheless true. I'm Catholic, so maybe that explains my opinion. On the other hand, I am willing to accept policies and laws that I don't like if they serve a purpose. Throughout my life seeing a clear purpose for the death penalty has waxed and waned. So my view on capital punishment as law is dynamic, but my dislike for it as an act of violence is constant.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I don't quite agree with this. That is to say, one component of punishment is the protection of the population, but that is not the only component.

For instance, the population would be equally well-protected if a murderer were to be exiled to a tropical island furnished with an XBOX 360, a 9 hole golf course and a lifetime supply of porn. Few, however, would argue that this is justice.

As the punishment shouldn´t be holiday for the convicted, the only thing he/she will do the rest of his/her life is to commute between his/her prison cell and the work to earn the money for food. The workplace is within the prison wall of course, so that he/she never will leave the prison again. Again, you doesn´t have to execute someone to equitable punish him. Like you can see from 2/3 of the world´s other countries, it works without a death penalty too.

Originally Posted by alexamenos

because we expect our fellow citizens to uphold the law, and we really mean business.

So strictly speaking, if a innocent is executed, it´s an offense of the state against law. In the proper meaning of the word, the procedure of an execution is not different to the act (killing) of a murder.

Originally Posted by alexamenos

people routinely say that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but how can you measure anything related to crimes not committed? that is, how do you ascertain the motivations and deterrence thereto of criminals who never committed a crime?

I wouldn´t say that a death penalty doesn´t deter someone from committing a crime, but so does a lifetime imprisonment in my opinion. Moreover, I don´t think a person which likes to kill someone will consider about the consequences before the act, also for a act in emotion.

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well "if" the administration of the death penalty deters others, this is also protecting the population.

But you doesn´t have to kill the culprit to protect the population. This is needless.

Originally Posted by dude1394

Also the well-being of the remaining friends/family/community after said monster has been given humane lethal injection is also to be considrered. i.e. Vengence.

I wrote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Vengeance doesn´t belong to penal law.

It´s very very hard, but to convict someone equitable, you mustn´t get emotional.


And what about this? Do you think this is a just punishment?

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Also in many countries, even in USA, you can be convicted to a death penalty not only for homicide but also for brutal heist, rape and in china even for tax fraud and corruption.

All in all I still can´t detect a convincing cause for the necessity of a death penalty.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well "if" the administration of the death penalty deters others, this is also protecting the population.

Also the well-being of the remaining friends/family/community after said monster has been given humane lethal injection is also to be considrered. i.e. Vengence.

I think VENGENCE is a pretty bad reason to have capital punishment.

Deterence....? this is a debateable feature, with pro-s and con-s on each side. Personally I have a hard time believing that the potential difference between serving the rest of your life in prison vs getting exectuted in 15 years figures into the personal objective function calculation of a crack fiend deciding whether or not he's gonna murder somebody over $35 in petty cash (or most other capital offense cases) ... but who knows?

[DevinFuture]

I think VENGENCE is a pretty bad reason to have capital punishment.

I agree.

People have different understandings of why we should punish in general.
Most reasoning fits under one of these 4:
1. Specific deterrance: Specifically deterring the punished individual himself from commiting more crimes, i.e. incapacitation
2. General deterrance: Making an example out of the punished individual in order to Deter other individuals from commiting similar crimes
3. Rehabilitation: Attempting to make the punished individual less likely to commit crimes in the future by changing his patterns of bahavior or desire to commit crimes
4. Retribution: Punishing individuals because, having done something wrong, they deserve to be punished

How you feel about these different motives can affect what you think about the death penalty. In my view, the death penalty does not provide a better general deterrent or specific deterrent than life in prison. And obviously the death penalty does not address rehabilitation. As far as retribution, I have never believed this is a good reason for the state to punish people. I prefer the more utilitarian reasons for punishing people. I think we ought to punish in order to protect people and society, not to do justice or vengeance.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

I agree.

People have different understandings of why we should punish in general.
Most reasoning fits under one of these 4:
1. Specific deterrance: Specifically deterring the punished individual himself from commiting more crimes, i.e. incapacitation
2. General deterrance: Making an example out of the punished individual in order to Deter other individuals from commiting similar crimes
3. Rehabilitation: Attempting to make the punished individual less likely to commit crimes in the future by changing his patterns of bahavior or desire to commit crimes
4. Retribution: Punishing individuals because, having done something wrong, they deserve to be punished

How you feel about these different motives can affect what you think about the death penalty. In my view, the death penalty does not provide a better general deterrent or specific deterrent than life in prison. And obviously the death penalty does not address rehabilitation. As far as retribution, I have never believed this is a good reason for the state to punish people. I prefer the more utilitarian reasons for punishing people. I think we ought to punish in order to protect people and society, not to do justice or vengeance.

1) Did you just say that you don't believe in 'justice' as a motivation for punishment? Only protecting society?

2) Capital punishment provides a better 'specific deterrent' in that it protects prison guards (as well as chaplains, social workers, healthcare workers, other prison workers, etc) and other inmates from further violence at the hands of the condemned.

3) Further, properly implemented, capital punishment would represent a superior resource allocation--imprisoning capital felons for life is not a cheap proposition. It should be a tough sell to the public generally to say that the public is going to provide legal representation, sustenance, educational opportunities, recreational outlets and healthcare for life to criminals convicted of killing innocent members of society. In short, prisons or schools? Prisons or education? Prisons or health insurance? Prisons or infant nutrition programs? From that vantage, capital punishment is a vastly underutilized measure.

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

1) Did you just say that you don't believe in 'justice' as a motivation for punishment? Only protecting society?

2) Capital punishment provides a better 'specific deterrent' in that it protects prison guards (as well as chaplains, social workers, healthcare workers, other prison workers, etc) and other inmates from further violence at the hands of the condemned.

3) Further, properly implemented, capital punishment would represent a superior resource allocation--imprisoning capital felons for life is not a cheap proposition. It should be a tough sell to the public generally to say that the public is going to provide legal representation, sustenance, educational opportunities, recreational outlets and healthcare for life to criminals convicted of killing innocent members of society. In short, prisons or schools? Prisons or education? Prisons or health insurance? Prisons or infant nutrition programs? From that vantage, capital punishment is a vastly underutilized measure.

1) I do believe in justice; But I think criminal punishment should not be based on desire for vengeance, but rather on the desire to protect society.

2) That's a fair point. But I do think there are reasonable ways to protect people in those situations without having the inmate killed.

3) It actually costs the state more money to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life. You can certainly argue that this is because capital punishment is not properly implemented. But in my view, as a matter of principle, running out of money is not a very good reason for taking a life.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

...--imprisoning capital felons for life is not a cheap proposition. ...

And it should be tough to sell the publicy generally that a execution is much much more expensive than lifelong imprisonment:

Financial Facts About the Death Penalty

Report to Washington State Bar Association regarding costs

• At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 inadditional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel.

• On direct appeal, the cost of appellate defense averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases.

• Personal restraint petitions filed in death penalty cases on average cost an additional$137,000 in public defense costs.

(FINAL REPORT OF THE DEATH PENALTY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC DEFENSE, Washington State Bar Association, December 2006).


Death Penalty has Cost New Jersey Taxpayers $253 Million

A New Jersey Policy Perspectives report concluded that the state's death penalty has cost taxpayers $253 million since 1983, a figure that is over and above the costs that would have been incurred had the state utilized a sentence of life without parole instead of death. The study examined the costs of death penalty cases to prosecutor offices, public defender offices, courts, and correctional facilities. The report's authors said that the cost estimate is "very conservative" because other significant costs uniquely associated with the death penalty were not available. "From a strictly financial perspective, it is hard to reach a conclusion other than this: New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one," the report concluded. Since 1982, there have been 197 capital trials in New Jersey and 60 death sentences, of which 50 were reversed. There have been no executions, and 10 men are housed on the state's death row. Michael Murphy, former Morris County prosecutor, remarked: "If you were to ask me how $11 million a year could best protect the people of New Jersey, I would tell you by giving the law enforcement community more resources. I'm not interested in hypotheticals or abstractions, I want the tools for law enforcement to do their job, and $11 million can buy a lot of tools." (See Newsday, Nov. 21, 2005; also Press Release, New Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, Nov. 21, 2005). Read the Executive Summary. Read the full report. Read the NJADP Press Release.



Study Finds Death penalty Costly, Ineffective

A new report released by the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury recommended changes to the stateÕs costly death penalty and called into question its effectiveness in preventing crime. The Office of Research noted that it lacked sufficient data to accurately account for the total cost of capital trials, stating that because cost and time records were not maintained, the Office of Research was unable to determine the total, comprehensive cost of the death penalty in Tennessee." Although noting that, "no reliable data exists concerning the cost of prosecution or defense of first-degree murder cases in Tennessee," the report concluded that capital murder trials are longer and more expensive at every step compared to other murder trials. In fact, the available data indicated that in capital trials, taxpayers pay half again as much as murder cases in which prosecutors seek prison terms rather than the death penalty. Findings in the report include the following:

• Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
• Tennessee District Attorneys General are not consistent in their pursuit of the death penalty.
• Surveys and interviews of district attorneys indicate that some prosecutors "use the death penalty as a 'bargaining chip' to secure plea bargains for lesser sentences."
• Previous research provides no clear indication whether the death penalty acts as a method of crime prevention.
• The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed 29 percent of capital cases on direct appeal.
• Although any traumatic trial may cause stress and pain for jurors, the victims' family, and the defendant's family, the pressure may be at its peak during death penalty trials. (July 2004)

Read the The Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research's Report, "Tennessee's Death Penalty: Costs and Consequences."



Study Concludes Death Penalty is Costly Policy

In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases. The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The costs of appeals were 29% of the total expense, and the incarceration and execution costs accounted for the remaining 22%. In comparison to non-death penalty cases, the following findings were revealed:

• 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 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).
• The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.
• The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence 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.

(Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections) Read DPIC's Summary of the Kansas Cost Report.



Death penalty trials very costly relative to county budgets

Capital cases burden county budgets with large unexpected costs, according to a report released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, "The Budgetary Repercussions of Capital Convictions," by Katherine Baicker. Counties manage these high costs by decreasing funding for highways and police and by increasing taxes. The report estimates that between 1982-1997 the extra cost of capital trials was $1.6 billion. (NBER Working Paper No. w8382, Issued in July 2001) Read the abstract.



Total cost of Indiana's death penalty is 38% greater than the total cost of life without parole sentences

A study by Indiana's Criminal Law Study Commission found this to be true, assuming that 20% of death sentences are overturned and resentenced to life. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002)


North Carolina spends more per execution than on a non-death penalty murder case

The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993). On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion 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.



Florida spends millions extra per year on death penalty

Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing 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 an approximate cost of $24 million for each execution. This finding takes into account the relatively few inmates who are actually executed, as well as the time and effort expended on capital defendants who are tried but convicted of a lesser murder charge, and those whose deathe sentences are overturned on appeal. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000)

Florida spent average of $3.2 million per execution from 1973 to 1988
During that time period, Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty to achieve 18 executions. (Miami Herald, July 10, 1988)


California spends millions more on capital cases

California spends $90 Million dollars annually above and beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system on capital cases. $78 million of that total is incurred at the trial level (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988). In January 2003, despite a budge deficit, California Governor Gray Davis proposed building a new $220 million state of the art death row. (New York Times, January 14, 2003).

According to state and federal records obtained by The Los Angeles Times, maintaining the California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. This figure does not count the millions more spent on court costs to prosecute capital cases. The Times concluded that Californians and federal taxpayers have paid more than a quarter of a billion dollars for each of the state's 11 executions, and that it costs $90,000 more a year to house one inmate on death row, where each person has a private cell and extra guards, than in general prison population. This additional cost per prisoner adds up to $57.5 million in annual spending.
(Los Angeles Times, March 6, 2005).


Texas death penalty cases cost more than non-capital cases

That is 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)

Link

[Jack.Kerr]

Properly implemented.

This is one of the more dishonest arguments by opponents of capital punishment. They argue that extreme (cost ineffective) measures be taken to protect against possible (though improbable) wrong executions, and then use that as a basis for saying that capital punishment costs more than perpetual incarceration.

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Properly implemented.

But what would that mean exactly? How would you save the money?
Less appeals allowed? Executions carried out sooner after conviction? Less guards for these prisoners?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Properly implemented.

This is one of the more dishonest arguments by opponents of capital punishment. They argue that extreme (cost ineffective) measures be taken to protect against possible (though improbable) wrong executions, and then use that as a basis for saying that capital punishment costs more than perpetual incarceration.

I don´t use this as a basis against the death penalty.

This was only posted, to show the costs thereby incurred and to rebut your statement. Moreover did you start this cost argument:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

...3) Further, properly implemented, capital punishment would represent a superior resource allocation--imprisoning capital felons for life is not a cheap proposition. It should be a tough sell to the public generally to say that the public is going to provide legal representation, sustenance, educational opportunities, recreational outlets and healthcare for life to criminals convicted of killing innocent members of society. In short, prisons or schools? Prisons or education? Prisons or health insurance? Prisons or infant nutrition programs? From that vantage, capital punishment is a vastly underutilized measure.

I never mentioned a comparison of costs as an objection. My principal reasons against the exercise of the death penalty, I have mentioned in several posts before, have nothing to do with cost effects.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

I don't like the death penalty. I believe it is the equivalent of state-sponsored murder and imo: state-sponsored murder = bad karma. Irrational perhaps, but nonetheless true. I'm Catholic, so maybe that explains my opinion.

It makes perfect sense to me that a good Catholic would be opposed to bad kharma. Its frankly a question I struggle with.

Regards

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I don´t use this as a basis against the death penalty.

This was only posted, to show the costs thereby incurred and to rebut your statement. Moreover did you start this cost argument:

I never mentioned a comparison of costs as an objection. My principal reasons against the exercise of the death penalty, I have mentioned in several posts before, have nothing to do with cost effects.

Dude....if I'm taking a pro-capital punishment stance, and I make an argument in favor of it, and you attempt (unsuccessfully) to rebut that argument, then you are effectively asserting whatever point you argue in rebuttal.

Given your indifference to the fates of war criminals, you're clearly so ambivalent about the topic at hand that you don't know whether you're afoot or horseback.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Dude....if I'm taking a pro-capital punishment stance, and I make an argument in favor of it, and you attempt (unsuccessfully) to rebut that argument, then you are effectively asserting whatever point you argue in rebuttal.

Unsuccessfully?

So you think further on, to execute someone is cheaper, than to imprison him lifelong, despite the posted figures?

...whatever the cost, as said before I will not take this argument against the death penalty anyway, because I think, to set a life off against money is perverse, ethically untenable and therefore a really weak argumentation.

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Given your indifference to the fates of war criminals, you're clearly so ambivalent about the topic at hand that you don't know whether you're afoot or horseback.

At first in the other thread we discussed about suicide. Hereunto I wrote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I´m not indifferent to the loss of human life. I only don´t care about the suicide of a real war criminal:

Here you can read that I only don´t care, if a real (guilty) war criminal commits suicide. The operative words are: real and suicide.

My definition for real in this context:

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Does anyone have sympathy with a war criminal? If you have maneuvered yourself in this situation. The consequences have to be clear in your mind.

That is, if someone voluntary e.g. kills children and raped women and because of that he can´t stand the psychologically pressure any longer, I don´t care if he commits suicide. And I made in fact a well-defined limit:

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

As in war many horrible things can happen, the exception is if you were compelled by someone (e.g. superior, thru force of arms,...). These humans are in a very bad situation and I can understand if they can´t stand the psychologically pressure.

That is, I feel sorry for these people.

Furthermore I wrote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

It´s a big difference, if someone commits suicide or is executed by another one. I can´t answer for killing someone, neither if a war criminal is guilty (you can´t be sure about this, and this is the other problem).

And no, war criminals don´t need love...they need hard punishment. But as I said in the other thread: I don´t want to range on the same level as a war criminal (murder). So no death penalty.

Hence you can´t name me neither indifferent to the fates of war criminals, nor to my position concerning the death penalty.

[Jack.Kerr]

...whatever the cost, as said before I will not take this argument against the death penalty anyway, because I think, to set a life off against money is perverse, ethically untenable and therefore a really weak argumentation.

People who make this argument are always the ones desperately trying to assert their moral superiority. This is the height of preening arrogance, the epitome of societal vanity and conceit.

Do you really put the value of the life of a condemned murderer on par with that of a hungry child? Or a child in need of medical care?

Is the value to society in preserving the life of a person who has a demonstrated capacity to destroy innocent lives REALLY equal to the value of investing in the education of childern so that they can become prodcutive, contributing members of society? Equal to the value of paying the salaries of educators, social workers, or public servants such as firefighters?

It's patently absurd to argue that it is.

Resources are scarce. They have to be put to best use. Raising the value of life, any life, especially the life of someone who has demonstrated himself to be capable of subhuman acts is a vane extravagance that society can not and should not afford.

Flip the switch already.

[DevinFuture]

Do you really put the value of the life of a condemned murderer on par with that of a hungry child? Or a child in need of medical care?

What a ridiculous straw man analogy. Nobody ever said they value the life of convicted criminals more than children in need. What Doc implied, and I agree with this, is that it's shameful for the state to take lives because it is cheaper than not taking them. So if you don't agree with that, than why should we not just put the needy children you refer to into the electric chair, if it would be cheaper than having to care for them.

[DevinFuture]

When you start getting into the business of deciding which lives are valuable and which ones are expendable, I think this is when you enter the realm of "moral superiority...height of preening arrogance, the epitome of societal vanity and conceit."

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

What a ridiculous straw man analogy. Nobody ever said they value the life of convicted criminals more than children in need. What Doc implied, and I agree with this, is that it's shameful for the state to take lives because it is cheaper than not taking them. So if you don't agree with that, than why should we not just put the needy children you refer to into the electric chair, if it would be cheaper than having to care for them.

When you start getting into the business of deciding which lives are valuable and which ones are expendable, I think this is when you enter the realm of "moral superiority...height of preening arrogance, the epitome of societal vanity and conceit."

My argument isn't a moral one, it's an economic one--and the issue is resource allocation.

The maintenance of murderers should never come before the maintenance of infants and contributing productive members of society.

And that's no straw man.

If you want to equate needy children with murderers, or argue for abortion for that matter, let's make another thread. But the absurdity of that argument means my work here is done.

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

The issue is resource allocation.

The maintenance of murderers should never come before the maintenance of infants and contributing productive members of society.

And that's no straw man.

And it doesn't have to. Nobody believes that it should.
But there's no reason why we can't pay to incarcerate criminals AND maintain "infants and contributing productive members of society." Resources are not that scarce, just misappropriated. And ironically enough, many resources are misappropriated to kill people.

To the extent that we don't now provide for "infants and contributing productive members of society", why do we not just kill all incarcerated people, so we wouldn't have to pay for their incarceration? Where do you draw that line?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

...why do we not just kill all incarcerated people, so we wouldn't have to pay for their incarceration? Where do you draw that line?

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" and all that, not an eye and tooth and an arm for an eye. There's nothing proportionate about executing a dude for shoplifting.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

That's all fair enough. But I do think many people do think the electric chair should be temporarily unplugged until the system can be made not perfect or utopian, but at least significantly more fair than it is now. Former Supreme Court Justice Blackman was one of them.
With regard to "the disagreement boils down to some arbitrary disagreements over how much tolerance we have for imperfections and inequity", I see your point, but I don't see a problem with anyone saying "it's not fair enough right now" even without having a complete understanding of exactly how fair it would need to be. That's not my view; I would oppose it even if it were "applied fairly," but I don't think the other view is unreasonable.

You cannot say it's not fair enough without also stating what IS fair enough imo. Someone who argues this side of this should be required to tell what is fair enough. That way reality can be brought into the argument. I have no idea what the percentage of folks proven innocent are, I expect less than 1% but have no hard data.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I think VENGENCE is a pretty bad reason to have capital punishment.

Deterence....? this is a debateable feature, with pro-s and con-s on each side. Personally I have a hard time believing that the potential difference between serving the rest of your life in prison vs getting exectuted in 15 years figures into the personal objective function calculation of a crack fiend deciding whether or not he's gonna murder somebody over $35 in petty cash (or most other capital offense cases) ... but who knows?

Sure it's not the best case, but it's there, admit it. If some monster kills 100 children in a town then there is a reason for that community (for example) to get closure via killing the sob. i.e. vengance in that case needs to be served or the people certainly do not feel like they have gotten justice.

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" and all that, not an eye and tooth and an arm for an eye. There's nothing proportionate about executing a dude for shoplifting.

That philosophy is based on the idea that the criminal deserves a certain punshment.
Kerr's argument was about resource allocation. He was more arguing that it is immoral for society to pay for incarcerating convicted killers while there are children in need of food and health care. And I'm saying, that argument would hold for criminals convicted of lesser offenses as well.

But on the "eye for an eye" issue, if I believed in that ideal as a good basis for punishment of criminals, I would support the use of the death penalty.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Do you really put the value of the life of a condemned murderer on par with that of a hungry child? Or a child in need of medical care?

Should this be a serious question? Of course not, I only don´t belief that the death penalty is an absolutely necessity to equitably punish a dangerous criminal. By the way, how could a hungry child or a child in need of medical care, benefit from the death of a criminal?

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Resources are scarce. They have to be put to best use. Raising the value of life, any life, especially the life of someone who has demonstrated himself to be capable of subhuman acts is a vane extravagance that society can not and should not afford.

I don´t know, why you always start again with this argument. As you can see in my posted articles before, it´s more expensive to execute criminals, than to imprison them lifelong.

For the umpteenth time, it´s not the point to find the most economical procedure to punish a dangerous criminal, but to question if a death penalty is absolutely necessary.

So here some of my principal reasons against the death penalty again, because I didn´t get any feedback to them:


1. A lifelong imprisonment as alternative: As the punishment shouldn´t be holiday for the convicted, the only thing he/she will do the rest of his/her life is to commute between his/her prison cell and the work to earn the money for food. The workplace is within the prison wall of course, so that he/she never will leave the prison again. You doesn´t have to execute someone to equitable punish him. Like you can see from 2/3 of the world´s other countries, it works without a death penalty too.


2. The execution of innocents: So strictly speaking, if a innocent is executed, it´s an offense of the state against law. In the proper meaning of the word, the procedure of an execution is not different to the act (killing) of a murder.


3. Will punishment deter anyone from killing? I wouldn´t say that a death penalty doesn´t deter someone from committing a crime, but so does a lifetime imprisonment in my opinion. Moreover, I don´t think a person which likes to kill someone will consider about the consequences before the act, also for a act in emotion.


4. Protection of the population: You doesn´t have to kill the culprit to protect the population. This is needless. A lifelong imprisonment will also do the trick.


5. Vengeance: Vengeance doesn´t belong to penal law. It´s very very hard, but to convict someone equitable, you mustn´t get emotional.


6. Proportionality: Also in many countries, even in USA, you can be convicted to a death penalty not only for homicide but also for brutal heist, rape and in china even for tax fraud and corruption. What about this? Do you think this is a just punishment?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

6. Proportionality: Also in many countries, even in USA, you can be convicted to a death penalty not only for homicide but also for brutal heist, rape and in china even for tax fraud and corruption. What about this? Do you think this is a just punishment?

If the democratic process says so yes.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I think, if it´s legally possible to execute a criminal, which didn´t commit homicide, the laws need a little revision. Where is here the proportionality?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

People who make this argument are always the ones desperately trying to assert their moral superiority. This is the height of preening arrogance, the epitome of societal vanity and conceit.

Do you really put the value of the life of a condemned murderer on par with that of a hungry child? Or a child in need of medical care?

Is the value to society in preserving the life of a person who has a demonstrated capacity to destroy innocent lives REALLY equal to the value of investing in the education of childern so that they can become prodcutive, contributing members of society? Equal to the value of paying the salaries of educators, social workers, or public servants such as firefighters?

It's patently absurd to argue that it is.

Resources are scarce. They have to be put to best use. Raising the value of life, any life, especially the life of someone who has demonstrated himself to be capable of subhuman acts is a vane extravagance that society can not and should not afford.

Flip the switch already.

this is an il conceived argument

[Mavdog]

and back to the start, the board and perry stop this execution.

justice should not be about "vengeance", that is the mentality that undermines the notion of what the guilty person's debt is and who it's owed to. that's when sacrificing the innocent is acceptable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perry commutes Texas death row inmate Foster's sentence

Sentence commuted to life for driver in '96 murder

12:20 AM CDT on Friday, August 31, 2007
By EMILY RAMSHAW / The Dallas Morning News
eramshaw@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry blocked the execution of death row inmate Kenneth Foster and reduced his sentence to life in prison Thursday after weeks of statewide protest and controversy over the law used to convict him.

The unusual intervention came just after the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted, 6-1, to recommend that the sentence be commuted, which is also rare. It's the first time in nearly seven years in office that Mr. Perry has stopped an execution, other than in response to Supreme Court rulings that barred the execution of juveniles and the mentally retarded.

Mr. Foster, the getaway driver in a 1996 armed robbery spree that ended in the murder of a 25-year-old San Antonio man, was scheduled to die Thursday evening. He was not the trigger man in the killing and contends he didn't know it was going to happen. But he was convicted, in the same courtroom and at the same time as the shooter, under the state's "law of parties," which authorizes capital punishment for accomplices who either intended to kill or "should have anticipated" a murder.

That law has drawn international protests, but Mr. Perry indicated he was more concerned about the simultaneous trials.

"It is an issue I think the Legislature should examine," the governor said in a written statement.

Mr. Foster, 30, will be eligible for parole in 30 years.

Mr. Foster's family and supporters, gathered in Huntsville for the possible execution, were jubilant.

"We're all a little numb – it's almost disbelief," said Dana Cloud, a spokeswoman for the Save Kenneth Foster campaign. "It is a historic turning point for Kenneth. But it's also a historic turning point in Texas, and indeed, with regard to death penalty in general."

But the news was heartbreaking to Nico LaHood, who found his older brother, Michael LaHood, shot through the eye in their driveway on that summer night in 1996.

Kenneth Foster "It's not justice," he said. "I don't think an independent jury's verdict should be questioned."

Officials at the Bexar County district attorney's office, which prosecuted the case against Mr. Foster, did not comment on the commutation. But in an interview last week, First Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said Mr. Foster is as guilty as if he fired the gun himself.

The Foster decision was the governor's highest-profile death sentence ruling since 2004, when he rejected a 5-1 recommendation of clemency for Kelsey Patterson, an inmate with a long history of mental illness. Mr. Perry has been a staunch advocate of Texas' death penalty, in the face of international mockery and pressure to curb executions at the country's busiest death row. Texas has executed more than 400 people since resuming capital punishment in 1982.


Joint-trial issue

House Corrections Committee Chairman Jerry Madden said he expects "a lot of hearings, a lot of information provided" for lawmakers on the joint-trial issue when they next meet in 2009. But the law of parties, he said, is probably here to stay.

"That's been in effect for a long time," said Mr. Madden, R-Richardson.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat who has actively pushed for death penalty reform, said he may try to pass legislation on both issues.

"Someone facing the possibility of the death penalty at the very least deserves their own fair and separate trial," Mr. Ellis said.

About 80 Texas death row inmates were convicted under the law of parties, and about 20 of those have been put to death. Most states have such laws for many types of crimes, but Texas is the only state to apply it broadly to capital cases. While death penalty opponents decry its use, prosecutors argue that all those responsible for heinous crimes must be held accountable.

Given the amount of attention paid to the law of parties throughout Mr. Foster's appeals, "it's hard to imagine this not sparking more conversation," said Rob Owen, a law professor and co-director of the Capital Punishment Clinic at the University of Texas. Mr. Owen said he believes the problem is not with the law itself, but with how Texas carries it over into sentencing.

Mr. Foster acknowledges he was up for getting high and robbing a few people on that night 11 years ago. But he was in a car with two other men nearly 90 feet away when one of his partners shot and killed Mr. LaHood in what jurors determined was a botched robbery.

The men in the car, including Mr. Foster, have testified that they thought they were finished robbing for the night and that there was no plan to stick up – and certainly not to murder – Mr. LaHood. The shooter, Mauriceo Brown, was executed last year.

Mr. Foster's attorney has said he believes his client's fate was sealed during his joint trial with Mr. Brown, when one of his robbing partners testified that "it was kind of ... understood what was probably fixing to go down" when Mr. Brown got out of the car.

It was enough for jurors – and later, the appeals court – to support a capital murder charge for Mr. Foster on the basis of conspiracy. They believed Mr. Foster, as the getaway driver in two previous robberies, either knew what was about to occur or should have anticipated it.

But Mr. Foster's attorney never got the chance to cross-examine the two other partners, who both received life sentences. One has since given a sworn statement to Mr. Foster's attorney saying he didn't understand that Mr. Brown's intent was to rob Mr. LaHood until Mr. Brown had already made his way up the driveway. The other has testified that Mr. Foster asked the men all night to quit and worried about returning the car to his grandfather.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court, upheld Mr. Foster's sentence for a final time this month. The governor, as the last line of defense in Texas death row cases, has the authority to reduce a death sentence to a life sentence with the written recommendation of a majority of members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The seven-member panel did not give a reason for its recommendation.


Resigned to his fate

In an interview on death row in Livingston last week, Mr. Foster appeared calm and resigned to his fate – but vowed he wouldn't be an "active participant" in his execution. He had stopped eating in protest, he said, and was distracting himself with books, letters and silent prayers that Mr. Perry would take his case seriously.

"I know a lot of eyes are on me right now," Mr. Foster said. "I just feel like I'm in a plane, and the engines went out, and all I've got is a parachute that won't open."

At a rally outside the Governor's Mansion on Thursday night, Keith Hampton, Mr. Foster's attorney, said his client has a long road ahead of him and that he's not confident he'll ever be paroled. But he said he expects Mr. Foster to be moved to more comfortable confines promptly – perhaps somewhere he can earn a college degree.

"People should not underestimate the hardship of a life in prison," said Mr. Hampton, who spent much of this week "a total basket case."

"He will find a way to contribute," he said, "to the prison world and the free world."