I too would be interested to know how the death penalty (as opposed to life imprisonment) increases costs to the State, numerous possible appeals notwithstanding. Simple logic would suggest the opposite.
Hypothetical: Assuming Malvo were given the choice, I wonder which way he’d go.
My guess would be the death penalty.
It’s been suggested frequently (no cites, too lazy) that life imprisonment is cheaper to the taxpayer than the death penalty. In regards to effectiveness, however, I’d say that the DP is 100% effective: If you’re dead, you certainly won’t kill again.
Whether it deters others from committing a capital crime is up for debate, but I can’t see how someone can argue that life imprisonment is more of a deterrent than the DP. I don’t think that either option is taken into account when someone gets it in his mind to kill someone.
Yes, but that still doesn’t mean our currently reality isn’t messed up.
Ptahlis
How does this idea fit into the discussion? I don’t think anyone has argued that any age is an all-or-nothing. I believe the jist of the legal basis is that age is merely, “the most effective way of handling the difference between adult and non-adult for all but extraordinary cases.”
Darwin’s finch and subsequent posters -
Currently, numbers do show that life imprisonment costs far less than a death penalty, but death penalty advocates argue (not unconvincingly) that without the appeals and extra legal hoops, then execution would be cheaper. Death Penalty advocates are, however, unable to present a scenario in which the convicted and their advocates would lose interest in appeals…
OK, I am against the death penalty, but this is exactly the kind of case they invented it for: No remorse, unlikey he will ever be rehabilitated, particularly heinous crime.
I think life in prison is a better option though, particularly if it is a special “extra gang rape in the showers” prison.
I’ve found this report (.pdf document) which confirms the claim that capital punishment is more expensive than life imprisonment (with the added note that the bulk of the added expense occurs in the trial phase, not in the appeals process or in carrying out the sentence).
As such, it would appear that from a strictly economic POV, the death penalty is inefficient, which is certainly a point against it.
Expense notwithstanding, Malvo has shown no remorse, indicating there is little, if any, chance of rehabilitation. Without hope of rehabilitation, what is then gained by keeping such individuals alive, particularly if it is the case where he is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole?
Giving them one privilege doesn’t obligate you to give them others, but I will argue that giving them more responsibilities does obligate you to give them more rights. Ever heard the phrase “no taxation without representation”? The same concept applies here.
Is 17 too young to realize the seriousness and consequences of signing a contract, or to comprehend political issues and cast an informed vote?
Is 15 too young to understand the rules of the road and how to maneuver a car?
You’ll have to work just as hard to convince me of any of those. I’ve touched on these issues in this thread.
Well, life imprisonment takes the guilty party off the street, so it’s certainly a deterrent to that person committing another crime.
What is gained is:
-
Said person can’t commit any more crimes (see above). Society is protected from said person, as it has a right to do.
-
We as a society are not participating in killing. Even if you think that society has a right to kill the guilty party (and I think it is arguable), it doesn’t follow that society must kill them. What is gained by killing them that isn’t gained by life imprisonment? A feeling of revenge, perhaps. But does this feeling exalt us as a society, or degrade us?
-
Said person may eventually reform and contribute in a positive way to society. I certainly wouldn’t want to be judged today by all the stupid opinions I held as a 17-year-old. Adolescents write lots of crazy stuff. Can we really take these writings as proof that the kid is unredeemable?
Sounds reasonable. But where would this obligation come from?
Given Malvo’s age, he has many years ahead of him in which he can change. After a very long time in prison, many inmates look back at the waste of their lives with true regret.
A friend of mine works in a prison, and he could show you many examples of inmates who have entered the system as angry, remorseless youths-- the type of people that you would call incapable of rehabilitation. After they’ve “aged out” and have spent the best years of their lives behind bars, they’re changed men who deeply regret what they did, if only because they saw the cost of their actions.
Having listened to his stories over the years, I agree with him that there really is no person which I would point to and say that they are incapable of rehabilitation, at least to some extent. This does not apply to every single inmate, of course. Some of them remain dangers to society, and should never be released despite the fact that they regret their actions. Thus, Malvo should always remain in prison, but this does not change the fact that in the future he may be a completely different person with deep regrets.
I don’t support the death penalty. Having heard the stories of my friend, I think that life in prison is much worse a punishment than death. Other posters have elucidated on other reasons why I don’t support the death penalty, though no one has yet mentioned what sociologists refer to as “the brutilization effect.”
Here is the Death Penalty Infomation Center’s reports on studies on “brutilzation effect.”
This site claims that homicide rates rise around times of executions. (Considering the site’s idealogical bias, I make no claims for veracity, but only post it because it’s interesting.)
This is an interesting site with many death penalty links.
I still don’t see what is gained by anyone concerned. If he is to be sentenced to life in prison, without possibility of parole, then any future development of a conscience will not avail him. He would still be doomed to life in prison. Is having him live a life filled with regret, then, deemed better (e.g., more humane) than ending his life up front? Or is it better that the prisoner die by his own hand than by the State’s?
On the other hand, if his development of a conscience later in life does net him some benefit, such as being moved to a lower-security facility or something, then it would seem that he is still able to benefit in some way, whether through outreach programs or obtaining an education, or whatever, from his prison life. Despite the fact that he denied several individuals the ability to live out their lives. This scenario would appear unsettlingly similar to an actual reward for a known killer - gaining benefits by being in prison which he might not have had on “the outside”.
How, then, can it be argued that life sentences are more humane than the death penalty?
I didn’t argue that it was. I don’t think the death penalty by lethal injection is inhumane, per se, because there is no suffering involved. (The electric chair is another story.) My objection to the death penalty is that it’s too expensive, a waste of time, barbaric, and some studies indicate that it actually increases crime.
It seems to me that a good deal of death penalty proponents are interested in revenge. “A life for a life,” sort of thing. As much as I sympathise with the agony of the families of the victims, I don’t see where killing someone will help ease their pain.
To me, the death penalty is barbaric, more suited to an uncivilized nation than our own. IMHO, killing is killing, be it state-sanctioned or no. In a way, I feel that we’re almost lowering ourselves to the level of the criminal by killing them. I’ve felt that a civilized people should be above that sort of thing.
You’re right: Malvo’s potential rehabilitation matters little in the grand scheme of things. He’s never getting out of prison. The only possible positive output he could have would be to write for the benefits of other misguided youths and possibly persuade them to leave the life of crime, or end up where he is.
**
No matter what kinds of programs he may be able to avail himself of, no person familiar with the prison system would ever think of calling living in one a “reward.” (Personally, I’d rather die.) His life will never be comfortable, happy, or safe.
Many of those programs exist more for staff safety than for the benefit of the inmates, in a way. If you keep an inmate busy, he’s less likely to become restless and violent.
Also, Malvo’s fame will work against him. When, and if, he ever comes up for a security re-evaluation, his fame will make staff more conservative in giving him privledges, out of fear of what the media will make of it. I sincerely doubt he will ever be put in a minimum security facility. I think the best he could hope for is medium security.
From the lawmakers’ consciences, hopefully.
As is the death penalty…
**
Again, the death penalty accomplishes this as well (if not better - no chance of escape, etc.).
**
Personally, I don’t see how it would accomplish either. Consider that Malvo killed several people, as a product of the very society you wish to exalt, yet there is no talk of how that has degraded or exalted us.
Why should he be given the very opportunity that he denied those he killed? Besides which, having stupid opinions and writing crazy stuff is a hell of a lot different from gunning down people in cold blood because you wanted to scare the community.
What, in your opinion, could Malvo actually do to redeem himself in light of the lives he took? And how many times in the past have multiple-murderers who, like Malvo, express no initial remorse, actually redeemed themselves to such a degree?
So, you do not equate “barbaric” with “inhumane”?
This would seem to imply that you feel life sentencing can act as a deterrent. And yet, crimes resulting in such sentences are still committed.
**
Suppose he “finds Jesus” and strives to educate himself. In effect, becomes a “model prisoner”: obeys the rules, stays out of trouble, etc. Would you say he would still be no better off than those he killed?
In terms of the cost aspect, it would seem that the bulk of the differential arises from the greater scrutiny that death-penalty cases are subjected to (per the document I linked to earlier). If all trails were subjected to similar scrutiny (and, one would think, it would behoove a “civilized” society to do just that, to decrease the likelihood of sentencing an innocent person), then that cost differential would likely be decreased, thus would be less of an issue.
Sorry. I didn’t express myself clearly enough. I guess my question was: Why does giving one more responsibilities necessarily entail giving him or her more rights?
**
The chance of escape is infantesimal, so small that it’s not even worth worrying about. A greater and more realistic risk that you might have pointed out is that he may try to hurt staff members or other inmates.
**
The actions of one individual do not reflect on the society as a whole. The actions of the state, however, do. The measure of civilization in a society is in how they treat their most despised elements.
**
Not necessarily, no. To me, “inhumane” is inflicting pain. “Barbaric” actions are those which a civilized society should not stoop to, such as stoning adulterers. It may not be the dictionary definition, but that’s what springs to my mind when I think of those two terms.
**
Again, not necessarily. I don’t really think that any punishment is much of a deterrent. A man who murders in the heat of passion is not thinking about potential punishment. A man who kills in cold blood is thinking that he’ll get away with it, anyway, so regardless of the punishment, he will still continue with his actions. Criminals don’t usually stop to think about what will happen to them if they get caught. (Lack of planning for the future is one reason they become criminals in the first place.)
**
**
Prison is a horrible place, even if you have “found Jesus.” Actually, a lot of religious guys have it worse, because non-religious inmates harass them, steal their things, and beat them in the expectation that they’ll “turn the other cheek.” Even as a model prisoner, his life will not be easy or pleasant. You live with horrible people who will go out of their way to try to make your life miserable. A lot of prisons don’t have effecient heat, and most have no air-conditioning. You have no freedom of movement, and little choice in anything. You can’t even decide when you’ll go to the bathroom or take a shower. You can’t watch good television programs, and the prison library is pretty limited. You might be raped or beaten. You must constantly “watch your back.”
Of course, his victims will never even have that much of a life, which is terribly sad. Still, I don’t see how killing him will do society any good whatsoever. It won’t bring them back, and it won’t stop the next lunatic who wants to do the same.
Unfortunately, if every case was given the same careful scrutiny, our system would grind to a halt. Prosecutors and the courts are clogged as it is. Public defenders have huge caseloads as it is, and are overworked and underpaid. I have great respect for them and the job they do, but they can’t devote as much attention to each individual case as is ideal.
Death is irrevokable, wheras a life sentance is. Both are regrettable for an innocent person, but the issue of permenance is an important one. Let’s take the advances in DNA technology, for example. Forty years ago DNA technology didn’t exist. A man who is still serving a life sentance for a crime comitted back then can now utilize that technology and have DNA samples tested, leading to exoneration. But a man who was executed will never have the opprotunity to take advantage of technological advances.
I think I understand your point. My only response would be that some under that age would be responsible enough, while others would not. However, it would be impractical (not to mention difficult and expensive) to decide their level of responsibilty on a case by case basis. So a standard of age seems the most logical solution to the question.
In the case of criminal prosecution, it is possible to decide the level of responsibilty on a case by case basis.
-
Because the justifications for denying those rights are the same as the justifications for denying the responsibilities: “Minors shouldn’t {be tried by the adult justice system/vote/sign contracts} because they don’t fully understand the implications of {criminal acts/casting a vote/committing to a contract}.” If the justification is wrong in one case, it’s wrong in the others.
-
Since minors can’t vote, the rest of society must represent them and take their wishes into account. If minors could vote, it’s a safe assumption that they wouldn’t agree to more adult responsibilities without receiving more adult rights. That’s a standard part of any agreement–if you’re going to give more, you want to get more–but since minors have no say in the agreement between citizens and government, the rest of us must act on their behalf.
If it’s possible in criminal prosecution, surely it’s also possible in criminal defense (e.g. statutory rape cases). And it must also be possible at a driving test, especially since the applicant’s paying for the test anyway.
For the reasons in my previous post, though, I still contend that it’s wrong to apply different standards when the effect is to give adult responsibilities while denying adult rights.