Is the death penalty too expensive? (Updated)
Don Quixote on Aug 16 2010 at 8:12 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
A favorite liberal tacticis to take something they disapprove of and make it prohibitively expensive. They did it with nuclear power and they are doing it with the death penalty. They’ve used the rather odd logic that it might be okay to kill criminals, but it would be cruel to hurt them while we are killing them. Insanity, yet such arguments have met with much success in the courts.
This issue arises in California with the news that California is is having to build a new death row to house all the convicts waiting for the courts to sort out how to kill them. The obvious solution is to execute these folks instead of building a new facility for them. But that solution somehow escapes the powers to be. So, the question is, is the death penalty worth saving and, if so, how do we save it?
P.S. I’m surprised this topic has gotten so little response and I’m curious why. Is it because conservatives consider this battle already lost? If so, why not just convert all death penalties to life in prison and get rid of death rows entirely? For that matter, why not just get rid of the death rows anyway? Why should prisoners subject to the death penalty be housed in a separate area to begin with? True, some prisoners should be kept separate from the general prison population (for its protection or theirs) but that’s always true. Shouldn’t that be evaluated on a case by case basis?
Related posts:
- Try a little tenderness . . . but only if you have a death wish *UPDATED*
- Fear of death and the failure of secularism
- A Capital Idea?
Email This Post To A Friend
15 Responses to “Is the death penalty too expensive? (Updated)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It took us 20 years here in Connecticut to execute a proven serial killer (Michael Ross). In the end he decided to forgo all further appeals and we still had to battle a lefty federal judge (now appointed to a higher court by Obama) who threatened lawyer’s licenses if they supported their clients decision. Today we have politicians opposing the death sentance for a pair of horrible criminals who followed a mother and two daughters home, clubbed and tied up the father, raped/killed the women and set the house on fire. The father, a prominent local physcian, lived and while the accused have basically confessed, democrats in the state house continue to propose repealing the death penalty.
The death penalty is still a potent means of demonstrating societies determination to punish and oppose heinous crimes. It also saves lives by removing the most evil criminals from any society. I think today almost all death penalty appeals are on smalller technical challenges, not basic evidence issues. There is no reason these should last so long.
Given the present judicial appointees, it would probably be the smart thing to do. Better not to challenge the law lest it be set in stone.
On the other side of the coin, our legal system is established to remove the feud aspects of criminal activities. By displacing the victim from the individual to society, it removes the onus on the victim’s family to apply justice. If society fails in its responsibility to apply justice, I can see the possibility of the individual’s family taking on the job again. Of course, on the other hand – maybe that won’t happen because as a society generally, we’ve become too wimpy. It probably depends on just exactly which portion of society the victim comes from.
DQ…regarding your question about the gun violence – I suspect this is part of the picture…blood feuds, where gangs are “family”. Eliminating blood feuds isn’t easy when they’ve been established as justice in certain cultures for years.
Look, I don’t need the state to kill these criminals. Just give out Presidential pardons, written and signed in advance, for anybody to kill these people when they get out of prison and the problem will be solved. I assure you.
When you want a job done well, do it yourself, I say.
If the state is cowardly and doesn’t want to spend money on executioners, they should outsource it to the citizens. Who actually do have a vested interest in terminating criminals, even if the Ruling Class does not.
It seems to depend on the state. At least in Virginia (and Texas), they take swift action – as seen with the DC sniper. Why are Texas and Virginia capable of this and not California? Is it a difference in state law or the will of their officials?
The other issue with waiting so long is that after decades, the killer is usually not the same person (extremists like Manson excepted). It’s harder to execute someone who has matured, become educated, or become devout and repented- it certainly feels less justified/more vindictive than when the pain of their crime is still fresh. I experienced the reign of terror by the DC snipers firsthand, and I felt no sympathy on John Mohamed’s passing. Would I feel the same way after 20-30 years? Can’t say.
The problem I have now is that the police and legal systems have become so corrupt that that the likelihood of error is so great (anything above zero (“beyond a shadow of doubt”) is “so great”) I am having trouble supporting the concept.
I don’t know what to do.
Larry Sheldon, it sounds as though the best thing for you to do is immigrate to Canada or the UK where the police and justice system are not so corrupt, and the death penalty is not an issue. They do have their own issues, such as prosecuting folks who dare to defend themselves or their homes, etc. There is also is greater clarity about the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, and several other countries of like philosophy and religious tenets. There is confusion in Iran right now, because they aren’t sure whether to stone women to death or hang them. But, they won’t agonize over it for long, and the end result is swift and final in either case.
Book, I think Mr Sheldon answered your question. It is not the law, it is the lack of will to enforce existing laws. That same syndrome manifests itself in several other examples; immigration law being the most obvious.
Common sense and logic play increasingly small roles in our public life; but I cannot imagine any knowledgeable and honest person arguing that there is serious chance, AT THE PRESENT TIME, of executing someone in error. In my lay opinion, there are so many protections governing the sentence of death, and the mandatory post-sentence reviews, that by the time someone moves through the hoops of justice, there is no reason to delay the execution–if society has the will to administer its laws.
I say we stick a canula in the back of their skull and suck out their brains. No anesthesia. If it is good enough for an innocent little baby, it is certainly good enough for a hardened, merciless murderer.
Wow, Zoe. I think you are on to something. Some experts say the death penalty is not a deterrent, but perhaps it could be.
I have been reading an excellent series of historical mysteries set in 18th century England, in which the protagonist is Sir John Fielding, the blind Magistrate who is considered the father of the London Police force. Punishment then, as it was throughout most of history, was swift, certain, and brutal.
Zoe, your comment reminds me of one of my favorite all time quotes: “The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors–psychology, sociology, women’s studies–to prove that nothing is anybody’s fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you’d have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view.” — P.J. O’Rourke
Zoe has a good point.
That our fearless leaders can support partial birth abortion but not the death penalty shows that they have no morals, only positions. Morals make you do things because they are right. Positions are crafted to attract campaign contributions and votes.
People wanting abortions, people wanting to make a living off of abortions, people wanting to commit crimes, people wanting to make a living defending criminals. These groups all vote (and write checks). The unborn can do neither. Why protect them? A mass murderer, on the other hand, may be useful in some kabuki play to help you get elected.
Once you realize why they do what they do, it makes perfect sense (but it also makes you ill).
Yup, it is essentially lost. It takes 10-20 years to execute most people. Perhaps what we should do is change the law of appeal so that after the first appeal, if the appeal is lost, the attorney for the convict will pay all court costs. If the appeal is won, the convict will be released into the custody of his attorney. Any subsequent felony conviction of the released convict will result in execution of the defense attorney: no appeals possible.
After reading what I wrote, I am reminded of Fay Stender, a radical attorney who merited an entire chapter in Collier’s and Horowitz’s Destructive Generation, a book about the 1960s radicals. Fay Stender spent her energies in defending prisoners. Her most famous client was the late George Jackson. She terminated her legal relationship with George Jackson some 6 months before his prison shootout. She could tell something bad was going down, so she got out. After spending so much time defending prisoners, she got disillusioned. From the book:
“Of all the prisoners she had gotten released, Fay once blurted out to her [attorney] husband in despair, ‘only one, absolutely only one, stayed out [of prison].”
Nearly a decade after George Jackson was killed in the prison shootout, a criminal came to her house and shot her, leaving her permanently paralyzed. About a year later, she committed suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Jackson_%28Black_Panther%29
“Why are Texas and Virginia capable of this and not California?”
California is filled with liberals and the elite socialites tend to subsidize and protect criminals like Polanski.
Wow, Gringo, #13 is a true horror story for liberals.
The woman was clearly honorable in that she truly believed in her cause, her whole life… until the last year or two. Then in the end, she despaired of her own beliefs, realizing that only one of her advocates had been worth it. Her LIFE cause – in her own mind! – had been repudiated. Then one of those reprobates of the type she’d used to defend, paid her a little visit… and destroyed her physically. And a year later, apparently in a deep black hole of despair, she ended it all, gutting out the candle flame of her soul in dark suicide.
Wow! That’s a chilling end to a life, isn’t it!?!?!