Boxes of dead babies found...

[jericho]

It costs more in taxpayer money to put someone to death than it does to lock them away in prison for life. Just saying.

 

Baseball bats cost less than a 100.00

 

Put in front of train is free

 

A gun and ammo at Wal Mart is less than 500.00

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

I've heard that before but I would like to see the math behind it.

 

Here's a basic summary.

 

One death penalty case (including all of the appeals, as well as the cost of death row incarceration) costs much more than imprisoning a person for life without parole. A few pertinent statistics:

 

Life Without Parole:

-Cases average 24.5 days of in-court time

-Jury selection takes an average of 1.5 days

-Cases take an average of 526 days to complete

 

Death Sentence:

-Cases average 147.6 days of in-court time

-Jury selection takes an average of 26 days

-Cases take an average of 1,902 days to complete (4 calendar years longer)

 

The state of California performed a study a few years back that concluded that their state would save $200,000,000 per year by eliminating the death penalty and replacing all death penalty cases with life without parole prosecutions. That's $1 billion saved every 5 years in one state alone...and for a little additional frame of reference, California ranks at #17 in the list of states conducting the most executions since 1976. So the United States would be saving billions of dollars each year by doing away with the death penalty and replacing it with life imprisonment.

[UKMustangFan]

I for one am glad that our court systems take such a detailed and thorough look into death penalty cases. If you're going to murder someone in the name of justice, you better be damn sure you're killing the right person IMO.

[stickymitts]

I for one am glad that our court systems take such a detailed and thorough look into death penalty cases. If you're going to murder someone in the name of justice, you better be damn sure you're killing the right person IMO.

 

Agree in most cases. In those that are open/shut with multiple witnesses, DNA confirmation...etc., get it over with. Maybe it takes that long to confirm all that stuff but...

[UKMustangFan]

Agree in most cases. In those that are open/shut with multiple witnesses, DNA confirmation...etc., get it over with. Maybe it takes that long to confirm all that stuff but...

 

But see, that's not the way the legal system works. Everyone is entitled to the same process. We can't pick and choose and claim to be fair and impartial.

[UKMustangFan]

As of 1/1/14, there had been 1,348 executions in the United States since the death penalty started being used. There have also been 130 death row inmates released due to subsequent evidence proving their innocence. That's nearly 1 of every 10. JMO, but a 90% accuracy rate is about 9.999% too low.

 

If we want to look at it another way, the death penalty was 1st used in the late 1970s...Roughly 40 years. That averages out to roughly 3 people sentenced to die each year that are subsequently found to be innocent.

[Hellbird]

It costs more in taxpayer money to put someone to death than it does to lock them away in prison for life. Just saying.

Then maybe they should just build a big cardboard box and tie her up and just bury her alive. That would be pretty cheap and about the same she did to the babies.

[formerkywrestler]

As of 1/1/14, there had been 1,348 executions in the United States since the death penalty started being used. There have also been 130 death row inmates released due to subsequent evidence proving their innocence. That's nearly 1 of every 10. JMO, but a 90% accuracy rate is about 9.999% too low.

 

If we want to look at it another way, the death penalty was 1st used in the late 1970s...Roughly 40 years. That averages out to roughly 3 people sentenced to die each year that are subsequently found to be innocent.

I'd say it's 10% too low...

[Bert]

It's true and it's all because of the appeals process. If someone is sentenced to death they automatically (makes no sense to me) even if they confess to the murders get an appeal.

 

In a psychology class I took, it was brought up that one challenge police and prosecutors have is sometimes people will confess to murders and during the investigation or trial, it will be discovered that the confessor could not have committed the murder and is mentally unstable. I guess an automatic appeal is way to prevent or atleast greatly reduce the possibility of one of these unstable guys (seems like they are always men for some reason) from being executed. I don't know just my gut reaction.

[HammerTime]

Here's a basic summary.

 

Thanks, seems like an easy solution to save money. Just get rid of it and let them rot away.

[doomer]

Just as an aside: I guess if I were accused of murder, I would want justice to be as diligently applied whether the prosecution was seeking the death penalty or a jail stay. I don't think I would adjust well to jail.

[Plato]

As of 1/1/14, there had been 1,348 executions in the United States since the death penalty started being used. There have also been 130 death row inmates released due to subsequent evidence proving their innocence. That's nearly 1 of every 10. JMO, but a 90% accuracy rate is about 9.999% too low.

 

If we want to look at it another way, the death penalty was 1st used in the late 1970s...Roughly 40 years. That averages out to roughly 3 people sentenced to die each year that are subsequently found to be innocent.

 

Proving their innocence - is that accurate? Or does that number include those that get off on a technicality? It is too high either way but that phrase got my attention.

[Getslow]

Proving their innocence - is that accurate? Or does that number include those that get off on a technicality?

 

I always found using the word "technicality" to describe the provisions of the United States Constitution that protect citizens from excessive state power a little strange.

 

Not trying to call you out in particular or accuse you of anything... just one of those things I tend to think about.

[Plato]

^ i get that.

 

My point was more along the lines of OJ not being innocent even if the glove didn't fit and he was found not guilty.