Death penalty?

[geraghd]

The Economist refers to an extra $2 million to administer the death penalty than incarcerating the offender for life.

Also a governor I think from one US state stated it would be better to get rid of the death penalty and spend the estimated extra money on other services (I believe they referred to the additional expense for the last 10 years of having the death penalty could have provided 500 extra police officers for one year).
Must confirm that from the Economist.

Presumably the Economist is basing that on keeping a individual sentenced to death imprisoned for 10 years+ while awaiting appeal after appeal (all of which carry huge legal costs). Personally I think keeping someone on death row for a decade is cruel - the person executed might be substantially different from the person who committed the rape-murder a decade earlier.

Are you suggesting death penalty should be executed almost immediately. The extra costs are indeed legal, the necessary safeguards to reduce the likelihood of an innocent person being executed being very costly.

[toxic avenger]

The Economist refers to an extra $2 million to administer the death penalty than incarcerating the offender for life.

Also a governor I think from one US state stated it would be better to get rid of the death penalty and spend the estimated extra money on other services (I believe they referred to the additional expense for the last 10 years of having the death penalty could have provided 500 extra police officers for one year).
Must confirm that from the Economist.

Presumably the Economist is basing that on keeping a individual sentenced to death imprisoned for 10 years+ while awaiting appeal after appeal (all of which carry huge legal costs). Personally I think keeping someone on death row for a decade is cruel - the person executed might be substantially different from the person who committed the rape-murder a decade earlier.

As for the Birmingham Six argument - I'd only be in favour of the death penalty when the likelihood of guilt is almost certain (i.e. if there were video-tape evidence, etc, or the murderer was caught red-handed such as a rampage-sniper shot by police and arrested on the spot)

In the case of the Birmingham Six, Doctor Skuse's forensic 'evidence' was considered watertight by the jury, and had the Judge been allowed they would all have hanged..

[clareman51]

There are a plethora of instances of lifers in prison taking the life of other prisoners or prison officers and not worrying as they wouldn't get any difference to their life as the death penalty didn't exist.
Murderers and their ilk should get life in solitary confinement.

[geraghd]

There are a plethora of instances of lifers in prison taking the life of other prisoners or prison officers and not worrying as they wouldn't get any difference to their life as the death penalty didn't exist.
Murderers and their ilk should get life in solitary confinement.

That would amount to cruel and unusual punishment and ouylawed by the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and European Convention on Human Rights I believe. Also the Geneva Convention although does that only specifically pertain to prisoners of war and unlawful enemy combatants?

[DaveM]

I don't think the death penalty serves justice under any circumstances. There are no advantages to society either in terms of it acting as a deterrant or having some kind of economical benefit and the consequences of miscarriages of justice are horrendous. In the most severe cases where there is no chance of rehabilitation offenders should be imprisoned for the duration of their natural life. However the potential to rehabilitate offenders should be corner stone of our justice system from the most minor to the most serious offences. The death penalty is simply not compatible with this principle.

[stringjack]

But that's the point - it is the easy way out. Why should we, the taxpayers, the law-abiding citizens, be forced to sacrifice some of our disposable income providing a rapist-murderer with a cell and facilities to punish him, if its easier to execute him?

For the same reason that you should be forced to sacrifice some of 'your' disposable income to feed orphaned children or to treat people with cancer. Providing a violent criminal with a cell and facilities is the only way in which s/he can continue to be a member of society, and all people are entitled to be members of society by virtue of the fact that they are people. (By the way, would you have any objection to prisoners working for a living from inside their prisons?)

As for the Birmingham Six argument - I'd only be in favour of the death penalty when the likelihood of guilt is almost certain (i.e. if there were video-tape evidence, etc, or the murderer was caught red-handed such as a rampage-sniper shot by police and arrested on the spot)...

There would be a concern that the definition of "almost certain" would, over time, be stretched far beyond the original intention. Criminal sanctions at the moment are applied when it is judged that a conviction is beyond any reasonable doubt - what is the difference between "almost certain" and "beyond any reasonable doubt"?

[geraghd]

But that's the point - it is the easy way out. Why should we, the taxpayers, the law-abiding citizens, be forced to sacrifice some of our disposable income providing a rapist-murderer with a cell and facilities to punish him, if its easier to execute him?

For the same reason that you should be forced to sacrifice some of 'your' disposable income to feed orphaned children or to treat people with cancer. Providing a violent criminal with a cell and facilities is the only way in which s/he can continue to be a member of society, and all people are entitled to be members of society by virtue of the fact that they are people. (By the way, would you have any objection to prisoners working for a living from inside their prisons?)

As for the Birmingham Six argument - I'd only be in favour of the death penalty when the likelihood of guilt is almost certain (i.e. if there were video-tape evidence, etc, or the murderer was caught red-handed such as a rampage-sniper shot by police and arrested on the spot)...

There would be a concern that the definition of "almost certain" would, over time, be stretched far beyond the original intention. Criminal sanctions at the moment are applied when it is judged that a conviction is beyond any reasonable doubt - what is the difference between "almost certain" and "beyond any reasonable doubt"?

Whats your opinion on the whole think stringjack. From a libertarian's (?) point of view...

[stringjack]

Whats your opinion on the whole think stringjack. From a libertarian's (?) point of view...

*shrugs* I don't think the state can legitimately punish people (where punishment is an end in itself, rather than a means to an end - as a deterrent, for example). I think it is entitled to apply the most minimal restrictions possible in order to protect everyone else (in some cases, that will amount to the same thing as a death penalty, but not in many). The question really is about costs - if more restrictive sanctions are cheaper than less restrictive samples, how do we justify support for one or the other. I don't think you can answer that question without taking a position on social justice (the distribution of wealth in society) in general. That is, I think the question of how many resources we devote to prisoners is similar to the question of how many resources we devote to people with illnesses and disabilities, and to the question of how many resources the prisoner would be entitled to if he or she were not in prison.