free12thinker

I believe this is probably true, but looking beyond the cost of TRYING the cases, I was referring to the amount spent per annum to hold people in jail, and multiplying this figure over the rest of their lives.

tronvillain

I always got the impression that was what was being compared.

darwinspetmonkey

One one hand I agree with the death penalty for the reason that the person who is capable of murder is a threat and threats are to be eliminated. However, as the system is imperfectly able to sort out the guilty from the innocent I can't support the death penalty on the grounds that the risk of killing an innocent is too plausable. If certainy of guilt was 100% 100% of the time I would be all for it but since that is not the case I have to be against it.

Alonzo Fyfe

Actually, I have always had a problem with this argument.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a psychologist invests an exam that provides him with a way of determining who is capable of murder. The exam is not fullproof -- some of the people it identifies as capable of murder would not, in fact, ever murder. And it misses others who are capable of murder. But, the thing is, its success rate pretty much matches the recidivism rate for murder. So, those who fail the test can honestly be say to be as dangerous as those who have committed murder, on the whole.

Because the dangerousness of the two groups is the same, if killing the members of one group is permitted because of their dangerousness, then killing the members of the second group should also be permitted. At least, if dangerousness were a valid criterion in this case.

Or, in other words, if we are not morally permitted to execute those who failed the test because of their dangerousness, how can we be justified in killing murderers because of their dangerousness.

The standard answer I get to this question is that "those who have committed murder have given up their rights" or some such argument.

However, please note that this response merely shifts the justification for the death penalty away from "dangerousness" and into
"rights". It is a different sort of argument, and fails to save the "dangerous" argument from the objection leveled against it.

Philosoft

AFAIK, these studies have always included total costs of appeals, in states where numerous DP appeals are automatic. I know Florida is one of those states. I don't think this negates the comparison, however, as I believe appeals in DP cases are more critically necessary than for other murder cases.

Hedwig

Believe me, I'm glad that we have an automatic appeals process set up.

I've met a few pro-death penalty people in my time who have actually told me that my argument that the death penalty costs more to the taxpayer would fall away if they stopped the automatic appeals process to cut down the cost on behalf of the taxpayer...and they think that this is perfectly acceptable and reasonable (mind you, the ones who typically give me that argument are of the fundamentalist Christian variety...but not always.) They don't seem to grasp that it's a person's life that's on the line and that there are no take backs once the switch is pulled. The appeals process is there to give the defense a chance to possibly find out new information and possibly, if the person insists that they are innocent, proving that they are innocent.

And since innocent people are still being released from death row thanks to DNA testing and all that, it's pretty obvious that not only is the appeals process necessary...it's vital.

Sorry...I get a tad zealous on this issue so I'm sorry if I sound overly emotional.

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Hedwig ]</p>

bonduca

I think that's something worth getting emotional about. Nice post, Hedwig.

Hedwig

Thanks! I'm surprised that my post was as well thought out as it was...I've spend the last 24 hours in a book.

Jamie_L

I am an atheist. My stance on the death penalty (as far as I can tell) has nothing to do with that.

In theory, I have no real problem with murderers being executed. I DO, however, have a BIG problem with innocent people being executed.

A justice system conceived and run by imperfect humans in a chaotic world will NEVER be 100% correct. As far as I'm concerned, so long as the death penalty exists, sooner or later an innocent person will be killed.

One innocent is one too many, especially in governments that claim to put the rights of the individual first.

Maybe, if I believed in an afterlife where good people were rewarded, I could justify letting an innocent die here or there, knowing they'd live happily-ever after for all eternity. But I don't. Death is it. Life is precious.

I don't see anything gained by having a death penalty that outweighs putting innocent men and women to death, no matter how rarely it occurs. (And given recent moratoriums in some US states, it seems maybe more common that even I thought).

Jamie

luvluv

For the record, I am a Christian and I am against the death penalty. There are lots of Christian groups that oppose the death penalty, including, I believe, the Catholic Church.