Fiscal Cons, still think the death penalty is worth it??

gimmesometruth27

to all of you who claim to be fiscally conservative, after reading this, is the death penalty still worth it to the american tax payer? what exactly are the people of california getting for all of the money they are investing in these death penalty cases and convicts? how can you justify continuing on with the death penalty and death row at these prices? how can you be for it at this cost at the expense of cutting funding for things like education and healthcare? the way i see it, we can spend money on making everyone healthier, or we can spend money on making sure a few hundred people get murdered by the state to the detriment of everyone else...

California Death Penalty Costs State $184 Million A Year, Study Finds

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 ... 80436.html

California has rarely executed convicts since the death penalty was reinstated there in 1978, but the state has managed to spend $4 billion taxpayer dollars on capital punishment since then, according to a new cost analysis.

The study, conducted over three years by a senior federal judge and a law professor, estimates that the 13 executions California has carried out in the past three decades have cost an average of $308 million each in legal fees and death row security costs. According to the L.A. Times, a death penalty prosecution can cost the state up to 20 times more than a life-without-parole case.

Since the lag in California between a death row conviction and an execution now averages more than 25 years, and the state hasn't executed one prisoner since 2006, critics of the death penalty are wondering exactly what Californians are receiving in return for their money -- especially given the state's mounting budget concerns.

"Basically, they're paying for a life sentence, but at the cost of death penalty trials, death penalty appeals and death row incarcerations, all of which are extremely expensive," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "And everything else gets shortchanged because of this gold-plated death penalty -- state schools are closing, policemen are getting laid off, prisoners are getting freed to make room. No one would think having the death penalty was worth that much."

California currently has nearly 700 people on death row -- by far the highest in the nation. If the state holds onto the death penalty, that number could climb to over 1,000 by 2030, costing taxpayers $9 billion, the study estimates.

Other states have already begun to phase out the death penalty due to budget issues: New Mexico repealed it in 2009, Illinois lawmakers voted to ban it in March of this year, and lawmakers in Maryland and Connecticut are currently considering doing the same. But in California, state law requires a vote by referendum in order to repeal the death penalty.

"We hope that California voters, informed of what the death penalty actually costs them, will cast their informed votes in favor of a system that makes sense," the report concludes.

inlet13

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

to all of you who claim to be fiscally conservative, after reading this, is the death penalty still worth it to the american tax payer? what exactly are the people of california getting for all of the money they are investing in these death penalty cases and convicts? how can you justify continuing on with the death penalty and death row at these prices? how can you be for it at this cost at the expense of cutting funding for things like education and healthcare? the way i see it, we can spend money on making everyone healthier, or we can spend money on making sure a few hundred people get murdered by the state to the detriment of everyone else...

California Death Penalty Costs State $184 Million A Year, Study Finds

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 ... 80436.html

California has rarely executed convicts since the death penalty was reinstated there in 1978, but the state has managed to spend $4 billion taxpayer dollars on capital punishment since then, according to a new cost analysis.

The study, conducted over three years by a senior federal judge and a law professor, estimates that the 13 executions California has carried out in the past three decades have cost an average of $308 million each in legal fees and death row security costs. According to the L.A. Times, a death penalty prosecution can cost the state up to 20 times more than a life-without-parole case.

Since the lag in California between a death row conviction and an execution now averages more than 25 years, and the state hasn't executed one prisoner since 2006, critics of the death penalty are wondering exactly what Californians are receiving in return for their money -- especially given the state's mounting budget concerns.

"Basically, they're paying for a life sentence, but at the cost of death penalty trials, death penalty appeals and death row incarcerations, all of which are extremely expensive," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "And everything else gets shortchanged because of this gold-plated death penalty -- state schools are closing, policemen are getting laid off, prisoners are getting freed to make room. No one would think having the death penalty was worth that much."

California currently has nearly 700 people on death row -- by far the highest in the nation. If the state holds onto the death penalty, that number could climb to over 1,000 by 2030, costing taxpayers $9 billion, the study estimates.

Other states have already begun to phase out the death penalty due to budget issues: New Mexico repealed it in 2009, Illinois lawmakers voted to ban it in March of this year, and lawmakers in Maryland and Connecticut are currently considering doing the same. But in California, state law requires a vote by referendum in order to repeal the death penalty.

"We hope that California voters, informed of what the death penalty actually costs them, will cast their informed votes in favor of a system that makes sense," the report concludes.

I'm against the death penalty. I could not care less about the cost. I'm against killing people. I think it's wrong, just like abortion.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

I'm against the death penalty. I could not care less about the cost. I'm against killing people. I think it's wrong, just like abortion.

Agreed! No more killing... people who have been born, I mean. The abortion issue is, no doubt, discussed elsewhere.

And thank you gimmesometruth27 for posting this. Too often the money issue is used to justify the death sentence... as if someones life can be put in terms of dollars. :problem:

Prince Of Dorkness

Careful... before long Tea Baggers will be suggesting that we have a reality show leading up to the execution and sell advertising.

Jason P

California needs to increase their efficiency on expediting executions or get out of the executing business. Perhaps they can farm their death row inmates out to Texas.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

California needs to increase their efficiency on expediting executions or get out of the executing business. Perhaps they can farm their death row inmates out to Texas.

so are you ok with the spending or ok with the killing?

cincybearcat

Interesting question. Then again, if killing a murderer prevents the deaths of others in anyway, can't really put a pricetag on that. I realize that point is debatable, but if you include the other people at risk by keeping some monsters alive (guards, other inmates, etc) then it's tough to say killing a murderer protects no one.

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

Interesting question. Then again, if killing a murderer prevents the deaths of others in anyway, can't really put a pricetag on that. I realize that point is debatable, but if you include the other people at risk by keeping some monsters alive (guards, other inmates, etc) then it's tough to say killing a murderer protects no one.

$184 million a year to protect a few guards or a few prisoners???

think about how much money that is spent in a year and what the state is gaining for that money.

why not put that towards something the entire state can benefit from?

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

California needs to increase their efficiency on expediting executions or get out of the executing business. Perhaps they can farm their death row inmates out to Texas.

so are you ok with the spending or ok with the killing?

Neither. But the program is in place, so they had better get efficient or scrap the program.

Being that it's California, I imagine the term "efficient" is not in the court's vocabulary. They are probably better off scraping the program ... unless they outsource to Texas.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Interesting question. Then again, if killing a murderer prevents the deaths of others in anyway, can't really put a pricetag on that. I realize that point is debatable, but if you include the other people at risk by keeping some monsters alive (guards, other inmates, etc) then it's tough to say killing a murderer protects no one.

$184 million a year to protect a few guards or a few prisoners???

think about how much money that is spent in a year and what the state is gaining for that money.

why not put that towards something the entire state can benefit from?

You are right though, the process is broken.

But what you are telling me is that the lives of a few guards and prisoners and the public at large should the murderer ever get out some way, isn't worth $184MM. So, what is a life worth?

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Interesting question. Then again, if killing a murderer prevents the deaths of others in anyway, can't really put a pricetag on that. I realize that point is debatable, but if you include the other people at risk by keeping some monsters alive (guards, other inmates, etc) then it's tough to say killing a murderer protects no one.

$184 million a year to protect a few guards or a few prisoners???

think about how much money that is spent in a year and what the state is gaining for that money.

why not put that towards something the entire state can benefit from?

good morning Gimmi, I follow what you are saying and as much as I have defended the death penalty..in my heart of hearts I don't know if it is right or not.
money really has no baring on this debate in my humble opinion if you think about the billion's spent on other thing's that some of us believe to be un-just to the American tax payer. I'm not saying you are right wrong or otherwise just wondering where is the line drawn with death and money because I see these two issues in everyday life beyond the prison system and death row.

Godfather.

Parachute

kill 'em all.

Metallica said so.

Godfather.

Parachute wrote:

kill 'em all.

Metallica said so.

does that come with a happy meal ?
just kidding Parachute,looking at your avatar I just couldn't resist.

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27

Parachute wrote:

kill 'em all.

Metallica said so.

that was referring to all of the record executives who would not release "kill 'em all" as the intended title "metal up your ass"...

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Interesting question. Then again, if killing a murderer prevents the deaths of others in anyway, can't really put a pricetag on that. I realize that point is debatable, but if you include the other people at risk by keeping some monsters alive (guards, other inmates, etc) then it's tough to say killing a murderer protects no one.

$184 million a year to protect a few guards or a few prisoners???

think about how much money that is spent in a year and what the state is gaining for that money.

why not put that towards something the entire state can benefit from?

You are right though, the process is broken.

But what you are telling me is that the lives of a few guards and prisoners and the public at large should the murderer ever get out some way, isn't worth $184MM. So, what is a life worth?

i believe that what benefits society as a whole in that state should be done. do not waste $184 million a year on trying and defending capital cases when it would be cheeper to impose, prosecute or defend in court a sentence of life in prison. if they did that, that money would be freed up for other things such as infrastructure, education, or putting it towards the budget shortfall.

mikepegg44

Aren't fiscal conservatives supposed to come in here and complain it is from the huffington post and the study was done by a anti death penalty center?
The cost for the death penalty would be greatly reduced if states would eliminate the real cost driver of the criminal justice system, the war on drugs...this would be simply putting a band aid on the budget while the center who put out the study would reach their goal of the death penalty being abolished.

so should they not have life sentences either? because that will STILL COST MONEY. prisons and punishment cost money but they benefit society too...

I am only against the death penalty because of the imperfect nature of our justice system, but life in prison is still going to cost money,

The bigger issue shows up with the inefficient justice system in california, not just specifically the death penalty, just all around inefficient

butterjam

cincybearcat wrote:

But what you are telling me is that the lives of a few guards and prisoners and the public at large should the murderer ever get out some way, isn't worth $184MM. So, what is a life worth?

No, its not worth it. That money would save a lot more lives in other ways, feeding hungry, health care, etc.

The more important thing to me is that no one should be put to death. Its one thing to kill someone to protect the innocent, but once they are in jail, I would say that the general public is safe from that individual. I understand that there are jail breaks and they do kill other inmates and guards, but that is a very small percentage.

On top of that, the death penalty is extremely biased against the poor and minorities.

Jason P

311jj wrote:

On top of that, the death penalty is extremely biased against the poor and minorities.

I think O.J. proved that it's just the poor.

brianlux

What about spending some of those tons of money on preventitive measures like reducing poverty, and improving education? I've spoken with two people who have worked with death row inmates and they both said that preventing murders should start with improving early childhood education.

butterjam

brianlux wrote:

What about spending some of those tons of money on preventitive measures like reducing poverty, and improving education? I've spoken with two people who have worked with death row inmates and they both said that preventing murders should start with improving early childhood education.

Exactly. Poverty and education is the crux of so many of our problems here. How to solve them is another issue/topic.

butterjam

Jason P wrote:

311jj wrote:

On top of that, the death penalty is extremely biased against the poor and minorities.

I think O.J. proved that it's just the poor.

He proved that being rich trumps being a minority.