Did Texas execute an innocent man?

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Won't have any effect. My father did a murder case a while back. Got the conviction reversed on appeal and subsequently got an acquittal on the retrial.

I'm against the death penalty for a variety of reasons. Mostly though, because it's not handed out on what I perceive to be an equal or fair basis, i.e., more likely to be given to racial minorities and people of lower socio-economic status.

I look at it like this -- if they couldn't put Terry Nichols to death [co-conspirator for the OKC bombing], then pretty much no one else matches up. Not even close.

Kevin, I agree with you sort of. What if it's a serial killer who's been proven guilty? You don't think he/she should be put to death?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Kevin, I agree with you sort of. What if it's a serial killer who's been proven guilty? You don't think he/she should be put to death?

Should he be? Sure... he probably ought to be thrown to the lions or committed to some other sort of cruel sort of punishment.

But what you're talking about when you're talking about putting a man to death are thousands of man-hours of appeals both in terms of lawyers' time and judges' time. Time that IMHO, would be better spent elsewhere.

You're also talking about separate holding facilities, actual costs of executions, etc.

It's far cheaper to keep these prisoners for life than it is to put them to death because of all of these costs surrounding the death penalty. It's not like it has any redeeming qualities like preventing further homicides, etc.

My father's stepfather sat on the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals (the state's final appellate court for criminal cases). He once opined that the one thing he knew about the death penalty is that once it's administered, the recidivism rate was zero. Perhaps there's something to that, but as far as I can tell, its' just not worth it.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Should he be? Sure... he probably ought to be thrown to the lions or committed to some other sort of cruel sort of punishment.

But what you're talking about when you're talking about putting a man to death are thousands of man-hours of appeals both in terms of lawyers' time and judges' time. Time that IMHO, would be better spent elsewhere.

You're also talking about separate holding facilities, actual costs of executions, etc.

It's far cheaper to keep these prisoners for life than it is to put them to death because of all of these costs surrounding the death penalty. It's not like it has any redeeming qualities like preventing further homicides, etc.

My father's stepfather sat on the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals (the state's final appellate court for criminal cases). He once opined that the one thing he knew about the death penalty is that once it's administered, the recidivism rate was zero. Perhaps there's something to that, but as far as I can tell, its' just not worth it.

Huh? How is it cheaper to keep them for life? What if a person is given the death penalty, and that death penalty that was given, is appealed through the courts for 30-40 years? Because that's what always seems to take place. Kevin, I'm not talking about "life" in prison, because that could possibly be 1/3 of the actual sentence as opposed to life in prison without parole. So, I'm talking about life in prison without parole. Kevin, you know more than I do, but I'm asking. How would that be cheaper? I'm guessing (depending on the state) it probably cost the tax payer about $50,000 to $60,000 dollars per year per inmate, so why not just use the death penalty for those who are not getting out of prison and assess the penalty of death at the time sentencing without appeal? It's just that I can't see how keeping them in prison could possibly be cheaper. I just think that doing it this way would just eliminate a bad person from society, and it would also save money that could be used somewhere else.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Huh? How is it cheaper to keep them for life? What if a person is given the death penalty, and that death penalty that was given, is appealed through the courts for 30-40 years? Because that's what always seems to take place. Kevin, I'm not talking about "life" in prison, because that could possibly be 1/3 of the actual sentence as opposed to life in prison without parole. So, I'm talking about life in prison without parole. Kevin, you know more than I do, but I'm asking. How would that be cheaper? I'm guessing (depending on the state) it probably cost the tax payer about $50,000 to $60,000 dollars per year per inmate, so why not just use the death penalty for those who are not getting out of prison and assess the penalty of death at the time sentencing without appeal? It's just that I can't see how keeping them in prison could possibly be cheaper. I just think that doing it this way would just eliminate a bad person from society, and it would also save money that could be used somewhere else.

It's the appeals process that kicks in with death sentences that make them that much more expensive, I'm pretty sure.

That and the initial expense of the trials is higher, I'm pretty sure as well.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

It's the appeals process that kicks in with death sentences that make them that much more expensive, I'm pretty sure.

Right. So why even have one?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Right. So why even have one?

Because a great many Americans are concerned about executing an innocent person or are concerned about executing someone without due process.

On a perverse level, I bet the deterrent effect of the death penalty might go way up if a lot more people were summarily executed immediately after conviction but you'd have to do it on a massive scale. You think it would be worth it, Cheerfulgreek?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

On a perverse level, I bet the deterrent effect of the death penalty might go way up if a lot more people were summarily executed immediately after conviction but you'd have to do it on a massive scale. You think it would be worth it, Cheerfulgreek?

That works great in China. Used to (still does?) work well in Russia. Completely stopped all of their crime.

-- no wait.. it didn't.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

What if a person is given the death penalty, and that death penalty that was given, is appealed through the courts for 30-40 years? Because that's what always seems to take place. .... I just think that doing it this way would just eliminate a bad person from society, and it would also save money that could be used somewhere else.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm

http://nwitimes.com/news/local/porte...8e2af87c0.html

Here are a couple of counter-examples to that. The idea that every death sentence appeal takes 30-40 years is a misconception.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I just think that doing it this way would just eliminate a bad person from society, and it would also save money that could be used somewhere else.

So what would happen if the sentence is wrong? Does the increase in efficiency outweigh the problems with such an approach?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Kevin, I agree with you sort of. What if it's a serial killer who's been proven guilty? You don't think he/she should be put to death?

check this out

[AGDee]

I am against the death penalty in all instances for many reasons, including the one cited by Kevin. Additionally, I don't think it's up to humans to decide when other living, breathing, healthy humans should die. In doing so, I think we violate the same basic human rights that the murderer violated in the first place. Further, I think our penal system serves two purposes, the first being rehabilitation (if possible) and the second being keeping the general society safe from people who are dangerous. I don't really see it useful as a form of "punishment". The death penalty has been shown NOT to deter crime, so it is not useful in that regard. If someone did see the penal system as a means of punishment, then I would argue that I believe that being in isolation in prison for decades is far more punishing than giving the easy out of death. Perhaps that's because I have no fear of death. I have fear of a long, slow, suffering leading to death, but no fear of actually being dead. From a religious viewpoint, if the person has remorse in their heart, then God would forgive them and they'd end up in heaven earlier. If they didn't, they'd be going to Hell and what's a few decades on earth in isolation in a prison compared to eternity in Hell? Just a mere flash of time, relatively. And, if even one innocent person is killed, what are the ramifications for the people responsible for that murder? For those who argue that it's too expensive to house criminals for life in that manner, the reality is that it's even more expensive for those on death row because of the appeals, etc. Some argue there should not be appeals allowed, but that increases the risk of innocents being killed. I'd rather see us err on the side of caution in that regard.

I realize that's not a popular viewpoint and I realize that it also would conflict with believing that war is ever ok. And, I can honestly say that I struggle with that one a lot. It seems there are times that there is no other way to stop someone like Hitler from harming more and more people so it does seem to outweigh the consequences in that instance, only because the number of people involved in doing the crimes are so large that you couldn't arrest them all peacefully. I see it more as self defense or protecting someone weaker from certain death when there is absolutely no other way to do it.. a last resort, so to speak. I do have similar concerns about innocents being killed and I am very disturbed by all wars, even those that I understand are necessary. It creates a strong inner conflict for me between what I know is logical and my personal ethics and feelings.