You killed my family member -- now I will support you for the rest of your life.

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FUD

Moderator
Another trend ("Killing the mentally retarded should be stopped") got me thinking about this. There are those who feel that cold-blooded murders should not be put to death because they are misunderstood, because they had a bad childhood, because the X-Files is going off the air, because James T. Kirk was demoted from Admiral back to Captain, etc.; and instead should be given a life sentence where their life will be spared but where they can pose no future threat to society.

Now let's look at this another way ... your tax dollars go to support and pay for prisons -- the building, the guards, the food, the color TVs, the fitness gym, the internet access, the free medical services, etc. I don't remember the exact number but I believe that it's out to be around $20,000.oo a year per prisoner (it might be a whole lot more or it might be a whole lot less but for the sake of arguement, let's assume that it's $20,000.oo).

You've just had a family member murdered and the person who did it is being put away for life. As a result of this act, your family is now facing emotional and maybe even financial hardship. Yet, $20,000.oo that is taken away from you in taxes is now going to financially support the person who has caused your family so much grief.

People tend not to look at it this way because all of our tax dollars go into one big pot and then divided up where ever it is needed but it you think about it, it all adds up to the same thing ... your family is being forced to financially support someone who has made your life miserable.

This just doesn't seem right. Does anyone else agree with me?

FUD
fudflag.gif

Share what you know, learn what you don't.
 
FUD,
I can't look up the numbers right now since I don't have full access to the resources, but I believe several studies have already been done on the cost of state executions. The findings show it is cheaper to house a prisoner than to execute them.( It makes no sense to me either, I mean how much can a rope cost? There's plenty of willing tree donors out there. ;) )

FWIW, I do agree with your position though, even if is more costly, money isn't everything.

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited August 10, 2000).]
 
RAE, if you could point us to the raw numbers, I would be interested in seeing them. I have a degree in accounting and I just can't believe that it's more costly to keep someone alive for even one year than it is to execute them. You get a needle, a doctor or nurse, a room and boom, you're done!
 
I'm sure that included in the cost of executing a dork is the cost of the entire appeals process. That would jack the price sky high! Still worth every penny, though.
 
Ojibweindian is right -- The studies on the costs of capital punishment do include the considerable expenses for legal and court costs. But those costs are real, and the studies I've seen all indicate that it's cheaper to lock 'em up until they croak than it is to hasten the process with a needle, noose, hot seat, etc.
 
FUD, the costs and benefits have all been worked out. Search for it. Executions in our system are expensive. Also given the clear inequities of the judicial system, making executions fast and easy is more of a threat to civil liberties than your feelings.

As far as your opening paragraph, it is really unsophisticated. Taking life is an awesome act and must be done in only extreme circumstances. Some folks are philosophically opposed to it. That it was done to your family and you want to kill the murderer is strictly a revenge motivation.

It is a legitmate philosophical position not be driven by revenge. The deterrent nature of capital punishment has not been demonstrated.

Life without parole solves the expense problem, the risk of executing an innocent, the differential execution rates based on wealth and race/ethnicity.

We peel away to the core of this argument and it is strictly revenge. Killing someone, even a bad guy, for costs is not morally justifiable. Only revenge and deterrence are viable.

And revenge is not congruent with some value systems if further harm is prevented by other measures.

I expect the usual flames.
 
When studies find that condemning someone to death is more expensive than condemning that person to life in prison, do those studies take into account the cost of 40+ plus years of having a "lifer" filing lawsuits, attacking guards and other prisoners, and eventually consuming plenty of medical care in old age?
 
EnochGale, with regard to your comments, I have two things to say ... [1] "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"; and for those that are not religious ... [2] "Mutual assured destruction".

Maybe criminals would be less willing to take someone's life if they new that their's could just as easily taken in return.

Look at it this way ... I lost my job, I've got a drinking problem, my girlfriend just threw me out of our apartment. Well, let me go rob somebody and let me kill them to ensure that there are no witnesses who can later identify me -- case in point, the recent fast food killings.

If I don't get caught, I have some quick & easy money and I will be more prone to do it again. If I do get caught, I get free room & board & food & medical coverage for life -- which is better than what I have now.

Let's change the equation a little. I take another life, I lose mine as well. Now, maybe when I rob somebody and they coorporate and give me what I ask for and beg me not to hurt them, maybe I won't because I don't want to lose my life as well.

With regard to your comment about my opening paragraph being "unsophisticated" ... I was trying to draw attention to how it seems that the criminal is never responsible for his actions. In the trend that I made reference to, a man wearing a mask broke into a home and put a knife to the throat of a young sleeping woman. She fought back and killed him with two shots of her .38 snubbie. Now, the media is painting him as a happy-go-lucky family man who might have had some problems and the victim is being painted as the BG.

With every action, either good or bad there are consequences to go along with them. Our society has chosen to remove those consequences and that's why thirty years ago I remember sleeping with the windows open and feeling perfectly safe. While now, even with locks on the doors and alarm systems, people still feel unsafe.

[This message has been edited by FUD (edited August 10, 2000).]
 
I agree with FUD. These automatic appeals are really a waste of time and money. I think that people have the right to an appeal maybe even two in cases where they will be put to death. But 10 years of appeals is a total waste of money.

Put them out at 500 yards and let us sharpen our head shot skills. Bullets are a lot cheaper and it's a learning experience! :)

------------------
"Some people spend an entire liftime wondering if they made a difference. Marines don't have that problem."
Semper Fi
 
If a jury of peers hears all the evidence and finds the accused guilty of a capitol crime then execution should not entail much additional expense or time. Has there been a person sentenced to "life without parole" who has actually died of natural causes while serving that sentence" (Maby Jack Ruby) Point being that many of those with long sentences still get out early and are back on the street. If the death penalty does not deter crime (I don't believe that), at least it takes care of the recidivism problem.

Prolonging the application of the death penalty is in the best interests of the lawyers, not the people.

If a person takes the life of another, they have forfeited their right to life, regardless of their mental state at the time.

Less government, more individual responsibility.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
I've quit supporting the death penalty since I read about several cases where new evidence showed that there were innocent people on death row. Now I only support execution for traitors and spies in wartime, since the knowledge in their heads is too precious to chance a leak. For the worst offenders I prefer life without parole.

I do worry about the cost of supporting a prisoner for his natural life. Most murderers are younger men, so you're possibly talking 60 years or more.

Let's borrow an idea from "Survivor". Surely the US has a big island someplace where we could set up a farm, and put all of these people there under guard to work the farm and live off the food they raise. No TV, just day-old newspapers. No exercise rooms, if you want to get pumped up, grab a shovel and dig potatoes. No luxury, just quarters like For Dix had when I was at boot camp there.

Make 'em earn their food through their own work, and if they don't want to work, let's see how far they get trying to steal food from all the other psychopathic murderers and rapists. BTW, in this "Survivor", getting voted off the island means floating away face down.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C.R.Sam: ... If a person takes the life of another, they have forfeited their right to life ...[/quote]Well put! If life means so little to someone that they would take another, then why should they be entitled to their own?
 
What I expected - revenge and/or cost.

FUD - if you want revenge, have a law that you personally kill them as they are tied to a gurney. You will be given a knife to cut their throat. No cop outs to the state.

As far as cost, I stand by my statement that we do not kill folks for cost. We piss away more money on stupid weapons systems than on supporting lifers.

Also, the Bible's an eye for an eye is outdated. If someone raped your daughter, to you expect to rape their daughter.

It is not an absolute. Life without parole is satisfactory unless you personally want revenge and in that case, you FUD, should
do it. Would you?

If OJ killed your daughter and got off, would you FUD now kill him personally?

Many list members blithely talk about this or that and how they would blah blah.
 
In reference to the cost of execution versus housing an inmate, here is the cost of an execution in North Carolina: $346.51 ( http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/deathpenalty/executio.htm ). Now I suppose you might get really nit-picky and add in the cost to employ the corrections officers, doctor, etc... for the event, but one must be realistic. As far as the cost of housing a prisoner it can vary according to certain conditions ( http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/cost99.htm) . However, the average daily cost of housing an inmate in NC is $62.41 (Figures are for 1997-1998). Now let me see, $62.41 goes into $346.51 roughly 5.5 times. So it seems a prisoner can be housed for 5 1/2 days at the same cost of an execution. Looks like after that 5.5th day it only gets more expensive.

Oh Well :rolleyes:


Medic

------------------
Admit Nothing,
Deny Everything,
Make Counter Accusations

[This message has been edited by Medic (edited August 10, 2000).]
 
Agree with FUD on this one. I cant see how appealing from death row is less costly than appealing from life without parole. I am willing to bet that the studies prooving that executions are costlier than life are done by those opposing the death penalty. Given that most convicts will appeal, especially thos faceng life without parole, the cost of appeals shouldnt be considered. The cost of keeping some scum bag alive for another 40 years after their appeals have run out is what should be looked at. I would love to have the rate of executions raised quite a bit. If memory serves me right we have over 200 living on the doll just here in TX. That is 2 million that could be used to improve our schools and maybe stop other from turning into the a**holes behind bars. I am all for making absolutely sure that the person accused of the crime is truly guilty which is why I dont think that the appeals should be limited nor lawyers denied. What should happen is that the instant someone on death row appeals a judge is required ot take the case roght then and there. Drop some BS tabacco suit or gun suit or any other civil suit and deal with a more important matter. If we could stream line the appeals then each person on death row can have their day in court and we could still get rid of the pond scum who are guilty.
 
EnochGale, it isn't about revenge. It's about human life being important and if a member of our society thinks so little of human life that he would take another, why should he be entitled to keep his and society should financially support him?

Answer me this. How would you like to have $22,700+ (using Medic's numbers) a year come out of your pocket and go directly to someone who killed a member of your family? You may not see it that way because all of the money goes into a big pot and then divided but it still adds up to the same thing -- a stranger that you never met will have all of his needs (food, clothing, medical attention, room, board, etc.) taken care of by the family of somebody that he murdered.

The reason our country has become so much more violent is because criminals know that nothing will happpen to them. Years ago, criminals had a code of honor among thieves -- you cooperate with me and do as I say and nobody gets hurt. Now, it's let's kill the victim when we're done and laugh about it. Why do you think that is? Could it have something to do with the fact if caught, arrested and sentenced, their own life will still be spared? Think about it.

[This message has been edited by FUD (edited August 10, 2000).]
 
EnochGale, have a hard time agreeing with you.

FUD, what you said.

I harbor a suspicion that, for reasons held in the dark corners of their minds, those who oppose death penalty do so out of fear, concious or otherwise, that they may find themselves on the receiving end of said penalty. Draw your own conclusions as to why this might be so.

But motivations aside, death penalty serves to prevent the criminal from perpetrating ANY more crimes, period. Life in jail certainly does not, although it makes people outside of jail feel safer.

As far as being wrongfully convicted, I think that is still a tragedy. But I fail to see how life in prison for a crime you didn't commit is any better. Do you have any idea what happens to us typical "law abiding" types (this assumes wrongful conviction) that end up in jail? IMHO, I think I would rather be dead than know I would be spending the rest of my life in Attica.
 
A convicted murderer may once again feel the sun on his face, or in any way experience joy, while the innocent victim cannot, Ever, is a complete injustice. That they may once again smile, or even hope to, while the victim is dead -gone-, offends me to the core. It is not about revenge, it is about trying to come as close as possible to making things right, that were made terribly wrong by the concious act of the murderer. The disgusting evil deeds cannot be undone, so true justice can never be 100%, but we should strive to come as close as possible. We all know right from wrong, and whenever someone decides to take anothers life, they conciousl decide that life is not the most important gift of all. The person who did the deed has no right to have what he has willingly taken from another. The actions are set into motion by the murderer, if we do not have the courage to bring these actions to their just end, then WE, as Men, Women, and Citizens, are derelict in our duties as members of a just and righteous society. If this in any infinitesimally small way results in encouraging one more killer, we all bear the blood of that victim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top