Nope, but they do get compensated.
Well, not exactly. Death penalty cases are just plain expensive in their own right, and the bulk of both prosecution and defense will be paid for by the taxpayer. Many people advocate for restricting appeals to reduce the cost of the death penalty, but a great deal of cost is incurred before the first appeal gets filed. At the trial level, trials are much longer with more and better paid lawyers, each with a crapload of experts for both sides: forensic experts during the guilt phase, forensic psychologists and psychiatrists testifying as to competency, sanity, intellectual capacity, future dangerousness, and mitigation during both guilt and punishment, other mitigation experts during punishment, etcetera. Just the trial alone costs many magnitudes more than a comparable non-death penalty murder case, anywhere from several hundred thousand more to several million.
Post conviction review is another matter; most non-death penalty cases in my state will likely get one appeal, to one of the fourteen Courts of Appeals. After that, the Court of Criminal Appeals may decide to hear it at their discretion, but in around 80-90% of cases they don’t - their job is to guide policy in general, not to make sure every single case in the state is tried correctly. That one appeal generally exhausts the direct appeal process, so if the case gets affirmed there that’s the end of the matter. Most run of the mill cases don’t present issues that will get them very far in post-conviction State habeas corpus proceedings or constitutional questions that will get their cases reviewed in the federal courts in federal habeas corpus proceedings, but death penalty cases always do by their very nature. Perhaps more importantly, court appointed lawyers and public defenders are usually only paid for the one direct appeal in the state courts, so if the defendant wants to continue with his case any further than that, he not only has to have a case that presesnts extrordinary issues, he has to be able to either pay for it himself, do it himself, or find lawyers to do it pro bono who are competent in those issues. Death penalty cases are much more likely to get heard in post conviction state and federal habeas corpus proceedings, and the government will pay for their lawyers. Many supporters concede that it’s more expensive, but argue that it’s worth the expense.
Yeah I’m not to hot on US foreign policy vis-a-vis Iraq either, as much of a bastard as Saddam Hussein was.
It’s obviously nothing close to perfect recompensation to let a wrongly convicted person out of prison, but it’s still better to be able to give them something than nothing.
Another shitty thing about the death penalty is that once it happens, there is no way to get the state to clear the person’s name retroactively. You sometimes hear DP advocates trying to make a disingenuous argument that it can’t be proven that innocent people have been executed, but that’s because the state doesn’t try to find out if they executed an innocent person. It does not investigate or have any kind of posthumous legal process for it. At least those turned loose from death row have their name cleared. The families of the wrongly executed never get to hear the state admit it was wrong.
Of course not, which is why our legal system allows for monetary compensation to alleviate losses. It should be obvious that monetary compensation and freedom is only possible if the wrongfully convicted is still alive.
Both seem like good reasons to me, but the later seems more convincing. It’s conceivable that at some point in the future, the state will actually start taking seriously the idea that innocent people shouldn’t be executed, and will thus assign defendants in capital cases good lawyers and so forth. However, it’s not conceivable that the government as a whole will be free of moral fault. I don’t see how anybody can look at a government that invades Iraq due to faulty intelligence, fails to prepare for Hurricane Katrina, hands hundreds of billions of dollars to the incompetent buffoons who caused the economic crisis, and say: “This government’s good enough to decide who lives and who dies.”
To the OP I am opposed to the death penalty because it is wrong to kill people. No matter how sure you are of guilt, no matter how heinous the crime, I am opposed to the death penalty.
It is obvious we have killed a lot of innocent people. put yourself in his spot and think how horrible it must be to go through the horrible judicial process and get a guilty result when you did not do it. Then to spend all that time on death row waiting to be killed for something you did not do. That is as cruel as it gets. Then to actually go to the gas chamber and experience the horror . What must go through their minds?
I believe killing is wrong. The state is guilty of murder when it kills someone . They spread the guilt across all its citizens. Some of us feel badly when it happens.
I’m generally against the death penalty.
That said find the arguments against the death penalty weak.
There is nothing about taking a life that is beyond a government’s legal power, there are probably more innocents killed by the government in police actions on our streets than are executed, the death penalty doesn’t seem to me to be any more racist than the rest of the justice system.
But I find the arguments in favor of the death penalty to be non-existent. Revenge doesn’t seem like a motive we should be encouraging. Also people who commit crimes that could lead to the death penalty vs life imprisonment are not rationally considering the consequences of being caught. So I don’t see deterrence as an issue.
Add also the fact that we always seem to be making exceptions. This person shouldn’t be executed because he is retarded. That person shouldn’t be executed because she found Jesus while in prison. This person shouldn’t be executed because he has his own fan club. It’s simpler all around if we just abolish the damn thing, and get on with our lives.
It’s not about what I THINK. Capital punishment is wrong, always and everywhere.
I’m sure I’ve pointed this out to you before, btw. You are the poster formerly known as Curtis LeMay, are you not?
The above is wrong, of course. Cite, not that it will do any good.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m okay with the idea of the death penalty but I’m opposed to its return to Canada on strictly economic grounds. Using the Americans as an example, I see absurdly expensive trials and appeals processes and waits on Death Row measured in decades, to be ended with a sterile near-painless lethal injection. What’s the point of that? Spending a ridiculous amount of time and money for a viscerally unsatisfying end? It’s like most of the dates I’ve been on!
This was done by the intervention of a governor, not as part of any normal judicial process, and it’s highly atypical.
Respectfully, I don’t think this is a lame point at all. When you incarcerate someone for life and subject them to mental degredation, physical degradation, rape and/or sodomization, place them in the company of real criminals, and destroy their bonds to their friends and family, you have effectively killed the person they were before they were falsley accused. That can never be recovered… sorry. You may free the body, but the person who was there is long gone.
I personally don’t agree that Blake’s point carries enough weight to win the debate, but it’s certainly not lame. Lame might be being so insecure in your points that you make fun of the other debater to draw attention away from the validity of their arguments. But who would do that? :rolleyes:
p.s. sorry if the quotes are a little messed up… first time multi quoting
It’s certainly not the case that executing someone and not executing someone yields “equally true” results, but if Blake would care to offer up some alternative to imprisonment and execution, I’m sure we’d all like to hear it.
No, it’s lame. It completely ignores the fact that the oblivion of death means never having any happiness ever again. If someone who was wrongly imprisoned is let out, every moment of joy he or she can eek out of the rest of their life is a victory that would be denied someone who was killed.
I did’t make fun of another debater, I pointed out that he was offering a completely worthless argument.
It would probably do more good if it didn’t actually undermine your point.
Not just atypical. All but unique:
Ok, can’t help myself, so I’ll bring out some off the wall devil’s advocate observations:):
Death = happiless oblivion? I demand a cite for such blatant assumption! (I think there’s another thread on this very topic)
Furthermore, even if we accept oblivion as true, it also means without the suffering of a lifetime in prison.
By whose standards? Again, I demand a cite! Is one moment of joy really a victory for that person over years of degredation? Or does it just make everyone else feel better about themselves?
Again, just talking things through. Not intending a heated debate.
No. You don’t get to change how the world works. If you are positing an existence of consciousness after death *you *are the one who needs to offer evidence. You have none, so we’ll just assume that there isn’t any.
I would assume that the majority of prison is boring, not suffering. But suffering can be ended. Do you think Nelson Mandela thinks his post-prison life was worthless?
Doesn’t make me feel better about myself. So no, it clearly doesn’t make *everyone *feel better. Prison sucks. But so long as someone is alive and innocent, some level of recompense is possible. Which is impossible as long as they are dead.
Yarrr! Heat! Sizzle!
The former. I don’t trust cops, lawyers or judges to have the power over life and death.