Death Penalty

[Hanuman]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/supreme_court_rules_death_penalty

Basically, we have conflicting views on dp right now and the court is starting to rule against it as time goes by, we could easily see a future without it seeing as how much it actually costs to kill them vs just keeping them for the rest of their lives.

[Bells]

The way you take on DP really can change depending from where you tackle it. There is the costs, sure, but i can't shake the view that pretty much all justices systems in the world have some degree of Human Error, prejudice and Corruption, and that leads to innocent people getting to Jail sometimes.

Even though, putting innocent people on Jail is something we can actually account for and try to make up for it, it's proven that sometimes you can send an innocent to death row on those same mistakes.

And i truly can't get past the sense that no amount of bad guys killed justify killing innocent people in the process due to "mistakes".

Specially when you can actually keep these people in jail for the rest of their lives.

[Hanuman]

They just need better lie detector tests, and start using bias for people scanned for having braindamage/genes which could cause the behavior.

[Bells]

There is a very good "Penn & Teller: Bullshit" episode on Lie Detectors, that, even though is a P&T:BS episode did tons on the way i see those things. It's on youtube but i couldn't find all 3 parts. All i know it's from season 7 episode 5.

[Osterbaum]

...genes which could cause the behavior.
Once again, no specific genes that cause any one behavioral trait have been (or are expected to be) indentified. Even if they were, there still exists the question of nature/nurture. Not to mention a shitload of other scientific AND social complications.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You guys do realise that the cost of people on deathrow is ridiculously higher than those in prison right? I can't remember the exact figure right now but for every person executed you could put fuckloads of people in prison for life. I remember an article showing that if you took California (pretty sure it was california- though can't remember to well) and placed all the people in deathrow onto life prison sentences you could wipe out nearly all of California's debt. Deathrow is expensive, if you are worried about cost you should eliminate it. It is FAR FAR more costly than jailing somebody for life. It's nowhere near close.

Also lie detector tests don't work, neither do brain tests, and genes/brain damage leading to crime is a nonsense idea from fairytale world.

[Nique]

They just need better lie detector tests,
Also lie detector tests don't work, neither do brain tests,

Can anyone actually verify this? There seems to be this sort of veil of mystery around lie dectector tests which makes me think it's laregly smoke and mirrors. I've heard people say that you aren't actually going up against the machine, that you're going up against your interogator who is basically going to follow a modifed MO of anyone who has tried to force a confession out of a nervous subject - fear, intimidation, mind games, suggestion, etc. The results (again, so I've heard) are dependant on how you answer the intial questions that 'calibrate' the test.

Actually, I think that since the only time you ever here about lie detectors being used is on, say, Muary, I'm gonna go ahead and feel safe saying that lie detectors are probably totally bogus.

[Bells]

Can anyone actually verify this? There seems to be this sort of veil of mystery around lie dectector tests which makes me think it's laregly smoke and mirrors. I've heard people say that you aren't actually going up against the machine, that you're going up against your interogator who is basically going to follow a modifed MO of anyone who has tried to force a confession out of a nervous subject - fear, intimidation, mind games, suggestion, etc. The results (again, so I've heard) are dependant on how you answer the intial questions that 'calibrate' the test.

Actually, I think that since the only time you ever here about lie detectors being used is on, say, Muary, I'm gonna go ahead and feel safe saying that lie detectors are probably totally bogus.

Because it's highly subjective. At most it gets closer to a Cardio Exam, and goes by the theory that if i ask you a question and you lie, your heart will beat faster because you got nervous with my sudden question.

Me, watching the machine, seeing this reaction will understand it as you getting nervous about said question and will them ask another question around the same topic or with similar objectives to compare the results. if you get nervous often on said topic i should conclude you're trying to hide something. And since you're telling me answers with just YES or NO as answers, i should conclude you're lying.

That's the over simplified reasoning behind a "Lie Detector"

[Jagos]

I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed

How the statistics go on capital punishment, for every 1 execution of a criminal it may stop ~7 homicides that he might have committed. (Isaac Ehrlich, 1975)

Also, since the DP is only given for homicides, it doesn't act as a deterrent for crime. The numbers just don't add up on it. I believe that's the main reason why we're seeing a lot more criminals having to stay in jail for so long. Question is, are we making criminals more effective by taking away the DP? Think about how we can have people smuggle cell phones into jails even at this time. Think about how we have people controlling "the streets" from the safety of a jail cell with no hope for redemption. Are we causing our own end?

[Lumenskir]

I remember an article showing that if you took California (pretty sure it was california- though can't remember to well) and placed all the people in deathrow onto life prison sentences you could wipe out nearly all of California's debt. Deathrow is expensive, if you are worried about cost you should eliminate it. It is FAR FAR more costly than jailing somebody for life. It's nowhere near close.
I don't know about wiping away the debt completely, but this (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty) shows how much cheaper it is to just permanently jail people. Some guy on Colbert said it would eliminate about $1 billion, but for now I'll take the conservative report from 2008 for now.

Anyways, I've never really heard a good defense of the death penalty that could account for the "Convicted Innocents" problem inherent in an imperfect legal system. Sure, it'd be nice if ex post facto pardoning (http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/10/sc-brothers-executed-in-1915-pardoned-in-2009.html) brought the wrongfully killed back to life, but it just doesn't work like that. Of course, since the whole thing is relatively popular (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/gallup-poll-who-supports-death-penalty) it becomes one of those issues that the Court needs to step up to at some point and deem unconstitutional before it'll really go away.
Question is, are we making criminals more effective by taking away the DP?...Think about how we have people controlling "the streets" from the safety of a jail cell with no hope for redemption. Are we causing our own end?
What 'end' are we causing by locking up people instead of meaning to kill them for 25 years until they appeal the case to a life sentence, are killed, or are proven innocent? Unless you have some data that isn't anecdotal, I'm going to believe that prisons and prisoners don't conform to comic book cardboard prison rules.

[Jagos]

Not cardboard, (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/17-06/ff_prisonphones?currentPage=all) but part of the problem is when people don't understand what they cause. In the example given, there's a law banning cell phones in prisons. The problem this creates is making it more likely that some who have been imprisoned are going to get a cell phone. There's going to be people needing to talk to the outside. From the man keeping in contact with his wife and child, to the kingpin passing orders to his troops. Read further and there will be jamming devices which make cell phone technology all the more lucrative within a jail cell. So no matter what, crime becomes more lucrative with this ban.

I remember the History channel having a few documentaries on gangs of different parts of the US. They were talking about how gangs can rule the streets, first by having people smuggle in cell phones, contraband or whatever else they would need. Second, they create crypted messages to loved ones which are orders for whatever crime syndicate they're affiliated with.

The question that I'm raising is whether we're making criminals less likely to get caught or are we truly making them pay for their crimes. Last I checked, they get three squares a day, contact with others... Other than the racial divides you would think it's high school for some of them. Joking aside, it's more a matter of what we can do to take away the power bases of criminals and stop making life inside a prison a perceived second home for so many.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Jail is not a nice place to be. Nobodyw ants to be there.
But the death penalty as a disincentive doesn't work because that's not how people think. People don't commit crimes intending to be caught. Life in jail and the death penalty are fairly similar in their position as bad punishments which are unlikely and vague.
Neither career criminals nor those commiting crimes of passion are going to be any more disincentivised by the death penalty over life imprisonment.
The only case it prevents crime is in the particular- ie the person you killed can't commit any more. The likelihood of that happening depends on a lot of factors but the money saved from not executing people could be used to rehabilitate people which could lower reoffending.

[Mesden]

Currently, a bit over 3000 people are on death row. Just recently over 100 people were absolved of all crime thanks to new evidence.

By the loosest and most lenient statistic in favor of the death penalty, you're killing an innocent person 1 in every 30 executions -- obviously it was much worse in years past because of worse evidencing, but this is all post 2000. That's a disgusting number and no rationale serves to kill those innocents because society feels vengeful -- law is not about vengeance. Anyone in open support of the death penalty -- as long as the justice system has ANY margin for error -- is also in open support of the murdering of innocents.

I'd say by their own logic they deserved to be put on the table, but that's not a humane enough way to kill them.

[Krylo]

Jail is not a nice place to be. Nobodyw ants to be there.
But the death penalty as a disincentive doesn't work because that's not how people think. People don't commit crimes intending to be caught. Life in jail and the death penalty are fairly similar in their position as bad punishments which are unlikely and vague.
Neither career criminals nor those commiting crimes of passion are going to be any more disincentivised by the death penalty over life imprisonment.
The only case it prevents crime is in the particular- ie the person you killed can't commit any more. The likelihood of that happening depends on a lot of factors but the money saved from not executing people could be used to rehabilitate people which could lower reoffending.

Adding to this, actual statistics: Texas rates third place in the U.S. for violent crime. (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_vio_cri-crime-violent) It also ranks first in number of executions (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/number-executions-state-and-region-1976). And not just by a little, either. In fact, the top 18 states for executions are ALL within the top 25 states for violent crime.

Death penalty obviously doesn't provide any disincentive at all if we actually look at facts and figures and not just gut instincts.

[BitVyper]

Can anyone actually verify this?

Lie detector tests measure physical signs which are not necessarily linked to lying and can show up for any number of other reasons, such as nervousness over being wired into a machine and interrogated. There was also a test done (and I'm sure many more by now)where the majority of participants (prison inmates) were able to fool the lie detector by clenching their sphincters.

It just doesn't work. Heart rate and palm sweat (and whichever other factor I'm forgetting) aren't enough to detect whether or not someone is lying. They're really just a tool to make you nervous enough to screw up.

[Lumenskir]

The question that I'm raising is whether we're making criminals less likely to get caught or are we truly making them pay for their crimes. Last I checked, they get three squares a day, contact with others... Other than the racial divides you would think it's high school for some of them. Joking aside, it's more a matter of what we can do to take away the power bases of criminals and stop making life inside a prison a perceived second home for so many.
So, I'll concede that some prisoners manage to sneak phones in, but how does keeping the death penalty around alleviate the problem? Really, what you highlight would actually benefit greatly from the elimination of the death penalty since it would free up scads of money that can go towards making prisons more secure. Using the California numbers from my other post, it's pretty easy to see that an extra $90 million+ could go towards better training, better techniques, more people on the payroll, and other things to cut down on the problems far better than the death penalty alone seems capable of doing.

[Gregness]

Here's a question: Why the hell is it so much more expensive to keep an inmate on death row awaiting execution than to have him in prison for life? I mean, are we giving them better rooms or something?

[Jagos]

Nope. But looking into all of the appeals for men and women on death row, they all have an attorney that's working to keep him from being executed. Only Texas within the Great US of A, is the only place crazy enough to give the DP an express lane. I believe the bulk of the money is in the court cases and lawyer fees for evidence and other parts.

Using the California numbers from my other post, it's pretty easy to see that an extra $90 million+ could go towards better training, better techniques, more people on the payroll, and other things to cut down on the problems far better than the death penalty alone seems capable of doing.

My post got eaten up. *&%&$%&^%$

My problem with the cell phone sneaking is that there are literally dozens confiscated. The ones that know the system the best usually can get what they want, consequences be damned.

My issue is in how to house them and keeping them away from society for their crimes. First, as SMB pointed out, these are some crazy mofos. I don't think I have to talk about prisoners fighting with whatever they have (including anything that comes out of them) or making shanks and schivs out of any type of plastic or metal they can. Problem is, as they grow older, they're teaching these "skills" to other criminals, either making them more effective or assisting in consolidating empires from jail. As far as I know, Death row is solitary. With only a few people inside, it's only a matter of time before their end.

Not that I'm advocating the Death Penalty. I'm just trying to see the benefit of a life sentence if it makes criminals more effective.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Here's a question: Why the hell is it so much more expensive to keep an inmate on death row awaiting execution than to have him in prison for life? I mean, are we giving them better rooms or something?

There cells are much more secure and well guarded. Especially because a lot of them try to kill themselves and a lot of guards are needed to prevent that, because we can't have them killing themselves now can we.
The vast majority of it is int he appeals system though. People ond eathrow make a lot more appeals and they tend to be much more expensive. Legal fees are crippling here.


Not that I'm advocating the Death Penalty. I'm just trying to see the benefit of a life sentence if it makes criminals more effective.

I'm just not convinced there are that many crazy super criminals out there and those that there are unlikely to be on deathrow because they would have fall guys and expensive lawyers.
As far as I'm aware deathrow is mostly the poorer, more uneducated, more sporadic criminals simply because they can't afford a way off it. I don't know if this is true- I haven't seen any stats on it or anything- but it is impression I got.

[bluestarultor]

Also, it's totally slated against non-whites. The system is just plain broken as shit.

[Jagos]

... Wha?

No offense, blues, but that came out of left field. Can you explain a little more?

[Magus]

I think he means non-Caucasians are more likely to be given the death penalty than Caucasians, or that a crapload of the people who have been proven innocent through DNA evidence are, not coincidentally, minorities. Don't know about the former but I'd say the latter is objectively true just by how many times it has occurred that DNA evidence has shown an African American male innocent of whatever crime they were put away for, which would show a targeting of either just African Americans in general for crimes or, at the very least, the wrong African Americans, which brings up a boatload of other racial problems.

Yes, the death penalty doesn't appear to be a disincentive for murder. But that is probably because most murders are a "crime of passion", non-pre-meditated murder, therefore second degree. And I'd like to point out that second degree murder very rarely is given the death penalty nowadays, it's usually just given life imprisonment. However, this may be different in Texas, where they seem to really enjoy their death penalty and so either they're giving out the death penalty for a lot of second degree murders or they're assigning first degree murder to a lot of second degree murders. Either way they don't fall in line with any other state in the country.

As for the California example, that is a bit of a flawed study. The reason the cost of a death row inmate in California is so high is they are required by law to wait 25 years before executing a prisoner. If the person had been given second degree murder they might have been paroled before 25 years pass, but in the case of death row without parole they're required to hold them for 25 years before killing them. This means they have to be housed, fed, etc. for 25 years, quite costly. I'm sure the cost is much lower for Texas, but their record shows a huge amount of injustice.

Most states seem to have chosen a fairly reasonable standard of only executing a few prisoners a year (or decade, for that matter), and for the most part arriving at 1. a first degree murder charge if they're going to give someone the death penalty and 2. a pretty damn heinous offense as the crime.

My own personal view is the system is pretty broken and incapable of proving someone guilty to the point that there's no doubt at all. Most people should be given life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. If they have committed first degree murder then give them life imprisonment without the chance of parole as a punishment, if they wish to be more punitive towards pre-meditated murder.

As far as if it works or not, the statistics are probably somewhat off because no, it's not going to make people stop committing non-pre-meditated murder. I believe it does stop pre-meditated murder, however, because it is hovering over a person putting a lot of thought into the matter and it's going to come into their heads, "If I go through with this, and get caught, I'm going to die." Of course, they probably don't think they'll get caught, so maybe it won't prevent them...

Regardless, like, giving Ted Bundy the death penalty was totally okay with me. It just probably isn't warranted for 99.9% of people.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I

I believe it does stop pre-meditated murder, however, because it is hovering over a person putting a lot of thought into the matter and it's going to come into their heads, "If I go through with this, and get caught, I'm going to die." Of course, they probably don't think they'll get caught, so maybe it won't prevent them...

Even pre-meditated killers don't think like this. It's like the lottery. They don't plan on being caught. And spending your life in jail is also very bad- it's not as bad as being killed but it doesn't have to be. The slight extra bad nature of being killed is going to push anyone either way, they plan not to be caught.
And I have a hard time believing anyone who is going to be turned off a crime by being killed is going to be ok with life in prison.

As for the cost, most of the cost is in legal appeals so the california 25 years things, while making a difference won't completely account for the vast disparities in cost.

[Jagos]

As far as I'm aware deathrow is mostly the poorer, more uneducated, more sporadic criminals simply because they can't afford a way off it. I don't know if this is true- I haven't seen any stats on it or anything- but it is impression I got.

Your serial killers run a gamut. Ted Bundy was a very intelligent man that could lure women to wherever he wanted. People aren't put in for regular murder. No, they're put in for contract killings or premeditation (which is really hard to figure out. Ted Bundy got the fast lane because he killed so many.). Even with so much, there's been at least 100 people that have been exonerated because of evidence to the contrary of their case.

[Amake]

I hear murder rates go up after every execution. Your country's highest authority is telling you that killing people is an acceptable way to solve your problems, after all.

[bluestarultor]

@ Magus and Jagos:

I was referring to the fact that basically elevety-billion percent of death row inmates are black and Hispanic, with most being black. Not that I have hard numbers, but I've read stuff in the past few years that indicates minorities are much more likely to be given the death penalty for the crimes they're convicted of than whites, even for the same crimes.

[MasterOfMagic]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/racial-disparities-federal-death-penalty-prosecutions-1988-1994 <- Here's a study on it from 1994. Can't seem to find a more recent study (with half-assed effort, I admit), but its hard to believe we've improved that much from the 90's.

[01d55]

... Wha?

No offense, blues, but that came out of left field. Can you explain a little more?
C'mon, everyone (http://www.google.com/search?q=death+penalty+race) knows that the courts are racist.

See also:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-death-penalty

[BitVyper]

On the point of cost: Executions themselves are expensive. Like, the death penalty isn't just unceremoniously administered by anyone. There's training, rehearsals (that one I didn't know about), and all that other stuff to go along with it.

Here's a fun little story out of Ohio: http://www.newsweek.com/id/215924

[Funka Genocide]

Currently, a bit over 3000 people are on death row. Just recently over 100 people were absolved of all crime thanks to new evidence.

By the loosest and most lenient statistic in favor of the death penalty, you're killing an innocent person 1 in every 30 executions -- obviously it was much worse in years past because of worse evidencing, but this is all post 2000. That's a disgusting number and no rationale serves to kill those innocents because society feels vengeful -- law is not about vengeance. Anyone in open support of the death penalty -- as long as the justice system has ANY margin for error -- is also in open support of the murdering of innocents.

I'd say by their own logic they deserved to be put on the table, but that's not a humane enough way to kill them.

You had me until that last part, which kind of sounds a little crazy-ish.

The death penalty exists because of the American necessity for revenge. It doesn't really solve anything, it just placates the blood thirsty masses.

All that stuff about kingpins running the streets in jail is irrelevant. Crime does not arise because of some genius mob boss that drags hapless cronies along with him, it exists because of poverty.

Taking all that money we're using to imprison minor offenders, drug users and to kill people with and putting it into social welfare programs and education would lower crime rate a hell of a lot more than offing a few psychopaths, but then grandpa Bill and gramma Emma wouldn't be sufficiently sated with the blood of evil.

[Nique]

The death penalty exists because of the American necessity for revenge. It doesn't really solve anything, it just placates the blood thirsty masses.

Maybe our leaders shouldn't be indulging such unwholesome appetites.

[POS Industries]

Maybe our leaders shouldn't be indulging such unwholesome appetites.
They shouldn't, but the guy who does has a better chance of getting elected.

This is a statement, of course, that applies to every part of our electoral process at this point.

[Funka Genocide]

They shouldn't, but the guy who does has a better chance of getting elected.

This is a statement, of course, that applies to every part of our electoral process at this point.


People are foul, petty creatures, and the smartest among us realize this and use it to their advantage. That is the political process.

[Hanuman]

People are foul, petty creatures, and the smartest among us realize this and use it to their advantage. That is the political process.
Some people simply gratify themselves by taking care of others.

[Mesden]

You had me until that last part, which kind of sounds a little crazy-ish.

It was a cynical remark with 2 points. The first point being that supporting the fallible death penalty is to support mass murder of innocents, which is obviously grounds for being executed by their own rules (death penalty dilemma/paradox). Second point is that doing such is inhumane because the lethal injection is not a humane way to kill people -- atleast in its current mismonitored form -- but exists as a way to rationalize it as them just "going to sleep," as for most people any more violet or gorey death sentence (that's otherwise less painful) takes away a layer of calm rationalization for killing people, and the lethal injections makes them feel better instead of the convict feeling no pain.

notice how I did that in one sentence instead of a paragraph. A very deep sentence!

[Jagos]

The death penalty exists because of the American necessity for revenge. It doesn't really solve anything, it just placates the blood thirsty masses.

All that stuff about kingpins running the streets in jail is irrelevant. Crime does not arise because of some genius mob boss that drags hapless cronies along with him, it exists because of poverty.

Taking all that money we're using to imprison minor offenders, drug users and to kill people with and putting it into social welfare programs and education would lower crime rate a hell of a lot more than offing a few psychopaths, but then grandpa Bill and gramma Emma wouldn't be sufficiently sated with the blood of evil.

First, I don't think it's only Americans that want revenge for murder.

Second, minor offenders are usually runners in an organization. Crime arises not only because of poverty, but a demand for different illicit goods. While social welfare programs and education can help, there will always be people the will want to run on the bad side of the law.

Recently, I found a reason for people to increase the minimum wage. Has to do with getting people out of the drug game (http://freakonomicsbook.com/), and into better living conditions for themselves as well as their mothers. As noted by those books, kingpins won't deter the death penalty but they can explain why people want to become bosses in the drug game.

[POS Industries]

Some people simply gratify themselves by taking care of others.
Those people don't last particularly long in politics.

[Azisien]

I'm not theoretically against the death penalty, but with the, more US, legal system being as biased and mediocre as it appears to be, probably not a good idea.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Second, minor offenders are usually runners in an organization.

Um, what? I think you will find that this number is very small and nowhere near a majority.