Death Penalty: Your Views

The economy comes before some wasted lives

How can it be more expensive when a murderer, who might for example serve 25 years, would cost the state 25 x 40000? That's a million pounds just for one murderer. From what I've learnt, an execution for one person doesn't cost more than £1 million. And that's only if they're serving 25 years which is roughly what a murderer will serve, but they can be in prison longer.
Well the person could plead guilty. Or what if there was video evidence from multiple different sources all showing the individual to be guilty? I would say that was pretty strong evidence showing the person is guilty.
Yes, but it will be less time than if they were to serve a life sentence.


Posted from TSR Mobile

In a 2011 study, the authors examined the history of California’s death penalty system to inform voters of the reasons for its extraordinary delays. There, they set forth suggestions that could be adopted by the legislature or through the initiative process that would reduce delays in executing death-penalty judgments. The study revealed that, since 1978, California’s current system has cost the state’s taxpayers $4 billion more than a system that has life in prison without the possibility of parole (‘LWOP’) as its most severe penalty. In this article, the authors update voters on the findings presented in their 2011 study. Recent studies reveal that if the current system is maintained, Californians will spend an additional $5 billion to $7 billion over the cost of LWOP to fund the broken system between now and 2050. In that time, roughly 740 more inmates will be added to death row, an additional fourteen executions will be carried out, and more than five hundred death-row inmates will die of old age or other causes before the state executes them. Proposition 34, on the November 2012 ballot, will give voters the opportunity to determine whether they wish to retain the present broken death-penalty system—despite its cost and ineffectiveness—or whether the appropriate punishment for murder with special circumstances should be life in prison without the possibility of parole.

I know innocent people are imprisoned; that's the point. If they were subject to the death penalty, they'd be dead. You can try and make amends if someone is innocently jailed, and you have preserved the sanctity of life; neither can be achieved if you've just shot them.

People have admitted under pressure plenty of times before, or been bribed/blackmailed into pleading particular ways. It's also illogical because if you know that the worst case scenario for pleading guilty is death and the worst case for pleading not guilty is life in prison, then there's no incentive at all to plead guilty, whereas currently you can get a lighter sentence, so everybody would just plead not guilty and nobody would be executed.

But if someone is innocent, and presumably in the majority of cases they aren't being bribed/blackmailed, then they would plead not guilty and then would not be subject to the death sentence.
Ok fair point, perhaps there should be evidence to support the admission so that the vulnerable cannot be unjustly punished.
Well, just because one person pleads not guilty, it doesn't mean the search for the killer will stop. There are still killers being found from 30 or so years ago.. So a case isn't simply given up on.
Would you really be content with a deranged mass murderer living a decent life in prison, where everything is free and the prisoners can be rewarded with TVs and expensive consoles, who has no intent of changing their ways and could leave the prison and commit murder again?


Posted from TSR Mobile

But if you can get out of the death penalty just by pleading not guilty because it only applies to guilty confessions, then nobody will plead guilty, so we effectively wouldn't have the death penalty. It would also conflate issues because if somebody pleads guilty you normally close the case and move onto the next issue, whereas if somebody pleads not guilty and the jury isn't convinced but they actually did do it, you spend more time, effort, and resources in going through more trials or potentially letting them free. It is in many ways in our interest for people who are guilty to plead so.

Precisely my point - the search for a killer might stop because the killer pleaded not guilty purely to avoid the death penalty.

I see prison as more than just punishment. They have a TV, but that doesn't mean they have an enjoyable prison life. I'd pretty quickly get bored of TV and the 2 console games I'm allowed if it's all I can do all day every day. Prison should be about rehabilitation as well as punishment. Category A prisons are on the whole not very cushty.

I thought your original premise was that the death penalty would only apply to people who pleaded guilty?

If so, people just wouldn't ever plead guilty because if they do they die; if they don't they stay alive.

If not, then we're back to the problem of burden of proof. We already don't put people into prison without being convinced that they are guilty. If you feel we aren't doing this well enough, then that is a far bigger issue than the punishment; we shouldn't be putting innocent people in prison or to death. Problem is, mistakes happen, and always will.
Well we've certainly set the bar high - prison is better than being homeless, sounds like luxury.

The fact that we have homelessness and people unable to afford living in this country is not the fault of prisoners; it is something which needs to be tackled to raise the poorest living standards. Free qualifications which they can't use because they're stuck inside with their TV and 2 video games, fantastic.

Perhaps not, but it is for Category A prisons where murderers are placed. For people who have committed smaller crimes then I agree with them having a few freedoms (they do have very few compared to the outside where you can do pretty much anything you like whenever you like) in order to help their rehabilitation. We want people to come out of prisons as educated or skilled individuals who can play a positive role in society.
So murder sentences should be longer than 8 years, clearly.

TV, posters, duvet covers and a couple of games (each game is counted as a separate item) every day for 8 years sounds **** and mind-numbingly boring to me.

Maybe they shouldn't be allowed table foolball and sofas, but I hardly think that when somebody commits murder they weigh up in their mind the difference between having a pool table or not while they're locked up.

This is perhaps the reason that countries that have the death penalty or really harsh prisons don't see huge reductions in serious crime. Any study claiming that the death penalty acts as a deterrent has been discredited by sociologists and statisticians. There's nothing to say it doesn't act as one either, but I don't think it's an argument in favour of killing people to show that killing is bad given that there is no conclusive evidence to back it up.

I'm not sure whether how I said it came across as I meant it, but no, my idea was that they either plead guilty OR there is enough evidence to claim certainty.
Well clearly you've lived a life of actual luxury, but there are actually people in this world who would see having a tv as the best thing. Some people genuinely would rather commit a crime and have something they've never had before which they've seen everyone else have while they haven't than not. You know, those who don't quite have their priorities right.
Yes, I completely agree that smaller crimes should be handled very differently, allowing the prisoners to be introduced back into society and allowing them to live in prison in a way in which they are able to do this successfully.
But, someone who steals and someone who kills are two very different people. And the question really needs to be asked, that if someone is able to commit 1st degree murder, even once, should they be welcomed back into society if they show no sign of remorse or of the rehabilitation working? In most cases, if someone has the ability to kill once, then there is nothing stopping them from doing it again.


Posted from TSR Mobile

What incentive would a bank robber have to keep their witnesses alive if they knew they were going to be executed if caught anyway?

But if there is conclusive evidence then it wouldn't matter that they pleaded not guilty. In time, a lot of prisoners will admit to what they did while they're in prison although they persistently pleaded not guilty at the start of their trial. I'm not saying this is the case all the time, but there are a lot of cases where they own up.
So, being homeless is better than being in prison, is it? Just because you're bored of your tv and games, it doesn't mean those who don't have those privileges won't find them very appealing. In the case of someone who doesn't even have enough money for food every day, let alone any kind of entertainment, surely committing a crime and getting 3 healthy meals every day, a chance to get free qualifications and so on is better than them wasting away in a home they can barely afford where they starve every day?
If most prisons were a lot more harsh, then I would be less in favour of the death penalty and I know there are some prisons where prisoners are locked in their cells for 23 hours a day, but this isn't the majority of prisons.
In the Jamie Bulger case, the two boys convicted of abducting, torturing and murdering the toddler were only imprisoned for about 8 years and had rooms basically as any teenager would have.. Tv, their own posters and duvet covers, games consoles. Not only that, but they were allowed to socialise in the common area where there were pool tables, table football, sofas and much more. When they were released, they were given new identities to PROTECT them. They didn't seem to care about protection while they were abusing the 3 or 4 year old boy, murdering him and leaving him on a train track. Not only this, but one of the two boys, after being released from prison has reoffended and I believe is still in prison or has recently been released. Don't you think, that in these cases, it paints a picture that others are able to do equally horrendous things and get away with only 8 years in a relatively nice prison? Hence why there needs to be a harsher punishment, whether that be the death penalty or not.

are you really saying that bank robbers should be negotiated with for a lower sentence on the backs of their hostages? what happened to the law and its indiscriminate application? and I never even knew how the members of the executive could negotiate for lower penalties when its the judiciary that decide those things. but honestly, if the incentive to save people's lives here is a lower sentence, the incentive on the other side of the field is the incentive to avoid death by never even committing the crime in the first place.

So it's a combination of them. People will never plead guilty because they will be sentenced to death, whereas if they plead not guilty there's a chance they'll get away with it. The incentive of a lower sentence from a guilty plea is removed, which causes more problems and solves none. If they plead not guilty, it's about evidence, which is prone to error.

That's not prisoners' fault; it's society's fault for depriving poor people of relatively simple things.

How many murders are committed by people who don't have TVs for example? I honestly don't believe people commit murder in order to watch TV in prison. They murder in haste, for revenge, for mental health, for terrorism, etc.

If a person is indisputably caught on camera, witnessed by several people killing someone I'd be in favour of the death penalty.

For instance, if someone pre-plans to rob a bank and carries a gun in case things go wrong which is then used to murder someone I would say definitely order the death penalty.

Surely, in that situation if the threat of the death penalty was known as the punishment the robber may seriously review his/her actions and weapons?

Such cold blooded, pre-planned actions that ruin a family's life by cutting short the life of one of their number leaves them with a lifetime of grief and sorrow.

Sorry, but sympathy for the aggressor and some imagined higher moral thinking is misplaced in such circumsatnces.

If a person is indisputably caught on camera, witnessed by several people killing someone I'd be in favour of the death penalty.

For instance, if someone pre-plans to rob a bank and carries a gun in case things go wrong which is then used to murder someone I would say definitely order the death penalty.

Surely, in that situation if the threat of the death penalty was known as the punishment the robber may seriously review his/her actions and weapons?

Such cold blooded, pre-planned actions that ruin a family's life by cutting short the life of one of their number leaves them with a lifetime of grief and sorrow.

Sorry, but sympathy for the aggressor and some imagined higher moral thinking is misplaced in such circumsatnces.

Aka, lawful revenge killing? There is no study that supports the idea that the death penalty deters, only statistics that show the contrary. Nobody should have authority over anyone's right to life, no matter how horrible their crime is. That rhetoric sets a violent, vengeful standard to our society.

So you really think that the threat of death is no deterrent? Interesting

No point even debating with you.