On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:26:34 -0700, wrote:




Check out
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/viewa...stionID=001000 for a
quick primer on both sides of the debate. The costs are not well
established, on either side of the argument, and vary from state to
state. But consider that in many states with the death penalty, it's
been many years since anyone was executed. Put someone on death row for
25 years, all the while tying up state and federal appeals courts and
supreme courts, and the costs are very high. And *all* the court costs
and prosecutor costs are borne by taxpayers. The differential is not 50
years in prison, or death, it's 20-30 years in prison, plus the court
costs (initial lengthier trial and public defender/prosecutor costs)
versus 50 years. And that's assuming a young perp who lives a long
prison life. Many die on death row - of natural causes.

You can also check out
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/numb...nd-region-1976
and see that as of March this year, a total of 1156 prisoners have been
executed, across the country, since 1976. About 35 executions per year
on average (there were 37 last year). According to DOJ, we have about
3300 death row inmates. That's about 94 years worth at the current
rate, so while there may be other confounding variables that would
affect that 94 year timeframe, it's clear that a death sentence is a
*very lengthy* prison stay, possibly ending in execution, but likely
actually being equivalent to life without parole.

The death penalty may well be much more expensive than LWOP, or it may
be somewhat cheaper, but clearly not by a large margin.

Keith Hughes

Right. My point was that most of the cost of the death penalty is
generated by death penalty foes, making arguments about cost somewhat
bizarre.
Personally, I oppose it because it allows innocent people to be killed
by the state.
When guilt is incontrovertible, I have no problem with it.
By incontrovertible, I mean John Wayne Gacy type crime, with
absolutely no doubts.
The idiot who recently ambushed the Pittsburgh cops and the convict
who shot up the Atlanta courtroom are other examples.
Scott Peterson is a different case. As sleazy as he is, there's a
chance he's innocent, despite the jury's verdict.
I'm not morally opposed to it being applied for heinous murder, just
leery of it's application.
Too many wrongly convicted people, even sometimes with "physical"
and forensic based evidence.
There have been cases of misinterpreted fingerprints and even DNA,
where a state DNA analyst - Oklahoma I think - was recently fired for
screwing up many cases.
Pretty hard to sanction the death penalty when the system is so
flawed.

--Vic