And the world loves America even less

[DMD]

Your data shows that the costs are born BEFORE the person is placed on Death Row - not after it. So the statement that it costs more to kill someone than to keep them in prison is completely disingenuous as I figured but it fits the agenda nicely if you do not ask questions.

 

it costs more to get a DP conviction is all. Not to keep them on death row.

 

Once they land in prison that cost is already absorbed - correct?

 

I'll use their data - http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

 

California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.

 

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sect...st.aspx?catid=3

 

Says it costs $47,102 per inmate per year in California on average. This includes $8300 per year health care to support someone sentenced to die.

 

So we can say that the annual cost of a death row inmate in California is probably around $130,000 per year.

 

Let's say the inmate is 25 when convicted and lives to 75. 50 x 130.000 = $6.500,000 if we let him rot in prison (and I am not even showing how costs escalate - the real cost is probably two or three times that easily).

 

So just answer me this one question - Do you think it is better for society to spend $6.5 million to keep a convicted killer alive for 50 years on the chance that the million dollar trial was wrong, or is it better for society to devote the $6.5 million to bettering healthcare, education, helping the poor, etc? Which one is the best use of limited resources?

 

Which one?

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Your data shows that the costs are born BEFORE the person is placed on Death Row - not after it. So the statement that it costs more to kill someone than to keep them in prison is completely disingenuous as I figured but it fits the agenda nicely if you do not ask questions.

 

it costs more to get a DP conviction is all. Not to keep them on death row.

 

Once they land in prison that cost is already absorbed - correct?

 

I'll use their data - http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

 

California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.

 

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sect...st.aspx?catid=3

 

Says it costs $47,102 per inmate per year in California on average. This includes $8300 per year health care to support someone sentenced to die.

 

So we can say that the annual cost of a death row inmate in California is probably around $130,000 per year.

 

Let's say the inmate is 25 when convicted and lives to 75. 50 x 130.000 = $6.500,000 if we let him rot in prison (and I am not even showing how costs escalate - the real cost is probably two or three times that easily).

 

So just answer me this one question - Do you think it is better for society to spend $6.5 million to keep a convicted killer alive for 50 years on the chance that the million dollar trial was wrong, or is it better for society to devote the $6.5 million to bettering healthcare, education, helping the poor, etc? Which one is the best use of limited resources?

 

Which one?

 

 

Do you actually suppose that if you can show the death penalty to be economically efficient that he would change his stance? The economics of it are a red herring.

 

It either is, or is not just.

[DMD]

Do you actually suppose that if you can show the death penalty to be economically efficient that he would change his stance? The economics of it are a red herring.

 

It either is, or is not just.

 

True, but I just want to hear a death penalty opponent admit they would rather spend millions of limited dollars on supporting a murderer than applying it to helping out society. Because that is precisely the choice they are making and there is no escaping that.

[Pope Flick]

So just answer me this one question - Do you think it is better for society to spend $6.5 million to keep a convicted killer alive for 50 years on the chance that the million dollar trial was wrong, or is it better for society to devote the $6.5 million to bettering healthcare, education, helping the poor, etc? Which one is the best use of limited resources?

 

Which one?

 

 

Killing is wrong. And you know full well the money saved won't go to those areas you listed. What's the acceptable savings to kill an innocent man?

 

And I haven't seen anyone here say it, but the reason many of these innocents are found in Texas is because they actually have the best evidence archive in the nation and can actually have viable DNA tests on evidence decades old as a result. Other states, not so much so there are fewer avenues to pursue because of no remaining evidence or contaminted dna.

[wiegie]

I need to know is Dez is going to play!

I am not planning on using him on my team.

I think Az just won this thread.

[DMD]

Killing is wrong. And you know full well the money saved won't go to those areas you listed. What's the acceptable savings to kill an innocent man?

 

How can you say that the money would not go to those areas? Where would it go? Government has limited resources and it goes somewhere guaranteed. What is the acceptable cost to society to deny benefits to the needy and young in order to support a convicted murderer? Call it killing or whatever you want, their own act is the cause of their own death.

 

How more guilty can these guys be? They went through a trial with the highest requirement for conviction and have appeals. How much more guilty can they possibly be? Why incarcerate anyone?

 

So to you, it is worth spending $6.5 million to keep a convicted murderer alive on the chance that he or any of the 1000's of others may be innocent after the most extensive legal proceedings in the justice system. So for you, no problem to deny the use of those millions of dollars to anything but keeping a convicted murderer alive.

 

I just want someone to say that they prefer to spend the money on a murderer than do anything else with it since that is exactly what it is.

[Pope Flick]

How can you say that the money would not go to those areas? Where would it go? Government has limited resources and it goes somewhere guaranteed. What is the acceptable cost to society to deny benefits to the needy and young in order to support a convicted murderer? Call it killing or whatever you want, their own act is the cause of their own death.

 

How more guilty can these guys be? They went through a trial with the highest requirement for conviction and have appeals. How much more guilty can they possibly be? Why incarcerate anyone?

 

So to you, it is worth spending $6.5 million to keep a convicted murderer alive on the chance that he or any of the 1000's of others may be innocent after the most extensive legal proceedings in the justice system. So for you, no problem to deny the use of those millions of dollars to anything but keeping a convicted murderer alive.

 

I just want someone to say that they prefer to spend the money on a murderer than do anything else with it since that is exactly what it is.

 

 

I don't prefer it, but it is what it is. I'd prefer not to have capitol punishment as well but it is what it is.

 

And your 'where would it go' rhetorical question is strawman of the highest order. Maybe it goes to another B2 bomber that I think we don't need? One thing's for sure, it won't 100% go to some theoretical societal benefit like you seem to want to believe. So it's a pointless herring to be dangling out there as if I'm some bad guy because I'd rather keep a murderer alive and keep millions from children, which is of course rubbish. You are smarter than that.

[DMD]

I don't prefer it, but it is what it is. I'd prefer not to have capitol punishment as well but it is what it is.

 

And your 'where would it go' rhetorical question is strawman of the highest order. Maybe it goes to another B2 bomber that I think we don't need? One thing's for sure, it won't 100% go to some theoretical societal benefit like you seem to want to believe. So it's a pointless herring to be dangling out there as if I'm some bad guy because I'd rather keep a murderer alive and keep millions from children, which is of course rubbish. You are smarter than that.

 

Absolutely no strawman. Unless you believe the government has unlimited resources which I honestly think many people do. What is the greatest expenditures of state governments? K-12 education and Heath and Human Services always take up well over half of all costs. And you cannot cut Corrections because there are laws to prevent that.

 

So in the "it is just a big old bucket anyway" theory, the reality is that most of it always goes to the poor, education, healthcare and the like. It really does. And that thinking - it would just go to another B1 bomber - is how people convince themselves that the money is pretty much unlimited for government and it doesn't matter how you apply it. So maybe 100% of the money would not go to the "the poor kids". Most of it would if only by percentage of the big old bucket.

 

Here is another question. Let's pretend that the government has limited money. And to give people like you who do not want to buy another B-1 bomber a chance to target specifically what your taxes would be directly used on. A true 1:1 instead of the big bucket. Would you be fine with every penny of your taxes going to support a convicted murderer?

 

Would you be willing to assign all of your taxes to keeping a convicted murderer alive for as long as you are alive? Or would you rather use your taxes on something else and hope someone else spends their money on keeping murderers all alive and well. I know this is a hypothetical question but if you could spend your limited tax dollars on anything specific, and knowing that most would not want to personally support murderers, who would be willing to step up to the plate and know that every dollar of your taxes supports a specific murderer?

[Azazello1313]

Your data shows that the costs are born BEFORE the person is placed on Death Row - not after it. So the statement that it costs more to kill someone than to keep them in prison is completely disingenuous as I figured but it fits the agenda nicely if you do not ask questions.

 

it costs more to get a DP conviction is all. Not to keep them on death row.

 

Once they land in prison that cost is already absorbed - correct?

 

I'll use their data - http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

 

California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.

 

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sect...st.aspx?catid=3

 

Says it costs $47,102 per inmate per year in California on average. This includes $8300 per year health care to support someone sentenced to die.

 

So we can say that the annual cost of a death row inmate in California is probably around $130,000 per year.

 

Let's say the inmate is 25 when convicted and lives to 75. 50 x 130.000 = $6.500,000 if we let him rot in prison (and I am not even showing how costs escalate - the real cost is probably two or three times that easily).

 

So just answer me this one question - Do you think it is better for society to spend $6.5 million to keep a convicted killer alive for 50 years on the chance that the million dollar trial was wrong, or is it better for society to devote the $6.5 million to bettering healthcare, education, helping the poor, etc? Which one is the best use of limited resources?

 

Which one?

True, but I just want to hear a death penalty opponent admit they would rather spend millions of limited dollars on supporting a murderer than applying it to helping out society. Because that is precisely the choice they are making and there is no escaping that.

 

so you think you can just ignore the extra cost involved in putting them on death row? that's why it costs more, so just pretend it doesn't exist?

 

I've heard some pretty disingenuous pro-death penalty arguments over the years, but "do it for the cheeeeldren! and the poor people" has got to be the weakest. not to mention the pathetic shell-game to try and make it look like it's saving money, when the opposite is clearly true.

 

imposing the death penalty costs significantly more than the alternatives. this is a fact. it has been proven by every state that has undertaken to examine the question. it costs more, not less. imposing that sentence pulls taxpayer money away from the children, grandmas, and apple pie

[bpwallace49]

..Texan freed after DNA clears him in wife's slaying

By

GEORGETOWN, Texas (AP) — A Texas grocery store employee who spent nearly 25 years in prison in his wife's beating death walked free Tuesday after DNA tests showed another man was responsible. His attorneys say prosecutors and investigators kept evidence from the defense that would have helped acquit him at trial.

 

Michael Morton, 57, was convicted on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to life in prison for the August 1986 killing of his wife, Christine. Morton said he left her and the couple's 3-year-old son to head to work early the morning of the slaying, and maintained through the years that an intruder must have killed her.

 

Prosecutors had claimed Morton killed his wife in a fit of rage after she wouldn't have sex with him following a dinner celebrating his 32nd birthday.

 

Wearing a simple button-down shirt and a nervous smile, Morton hugged each of his half-dozen defense attorneys, then hugged his parents after District Judge Sid Harle said he was a free man.

 

"You do have my sympathies," Harle said. "You have my apologies. ... We do not have a perfect system of justice, but we have the best system of justice in the world."

 

Addressing reporters moments later, Morton struggled to hold back tears.

 

"I thank God this wasn't a capital case. That I only had life because it gave these saints here at the Innocence Project time to do this," he said.

 

Texas has executed more prisoners than any other state. The New York-based Innocence Project, which helped Morton secure his release, specializes in using DNA testing to overturn wrongful convictions.

 

This summer, using techniques that weren't available during Morton's 1987 trial, authorities detected Christine Morton's DNA on a bloody bandana discovered near the Morton home soon after her death, along with that of a convicted felon whose name has not been released.

 

"Colors seem real bright to me now. Women are real good looking," Morton said with a smile. He then headed to a celebratory dinner with his family and lawyers.

 

The case in Williamson County, north of Austin, will likely raise more questions about the district attorney, John Bradley, a Gov. Rick Perry appointee whose tenure on the Texas Forensic Science Commission was controversial. Bradley criticized the commission's investigation of the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 after being convicted of arson in the deaths of his three children. Some experts have since concluded the forensic science in the case was faulty.

 

Bradley did not try the original case against Morton. But the Innocence Project has accused him of suppressing evidence that would have helped clear Morton sooner. That evidence — including a transcript of a police interview indicating that Morton's son said the attacker was not his father and that his wife's credit card and personal checks were used after she was killed — was ultimately obtained through a Texas Public Information Act request.

Bradley agreed Morton should be freed after the other man's DNA was tied to a similar slaying in January 1988 — after Morton was already in prison.

 

Harle signed an agreement Monday recommending that Morton's conviction be overturned. It was passed on to the state Court of Criminal Appeals, which will make the final ruling that could make Morton eligible for state compensation of $80,000 per year he was wrongfully imprisoned — about $2 million total.

 

Morton is not allowed to leave Texas until the Court of Criminal Appeals rules. Innocence Project co-founder Barry Sheck said that process usually takes at least a month but could take two or three.

 

Asked if he ever thought he would be released, Morton said, "I prayed for it, and I had faith it would arise."

 

His lawyers said he couldn't answer more questions about his case because of the pending appeals court decision, and separate court filings charging police and prosecutorial misconduct.

 

Morton's defense attorney, John Raley, said his client was told a few years ago that if he showed remorse for the crime, he likely would have been paroled.

 

"I don't know what I would respond after the system had let me down the way it had and I'd been in prison 23, 24 years," Raley said. "But this man told them, 'All I have left is my actual innocence. And if I have to spend the rest of my life in prison I'm not giving that up.'"

 

Morton's release could become an issue for Perry, who is vying for the Republican presidential nomination. Perry appointed Bradley to the forensic commission in 2009, but the Texas Senate refused to confirm him after he told reporters Willingham was a "guilty monster."

 

A report indicating that the science in the Willingham case might have been flawed was submitted to Perry's office as part of the appeals Willingham's lawyers filed before his execution.

..

 

Another good reason why the death penalty is a bad idea . . . .

[SEC=UGA]

..

 

Another good reason why the death penalty is a bad idea . . . .

 

Yeah, I can give you hundreds more examples of why it is good.