BoatBanter.com - Americans take ship back!

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- Cruising (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/)

- - Americans take ship back! (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/103938-americans-take-ship-back.html)

Americans take ship back! - update

Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:53:13 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
"Edgar" wrote:

Leaving aside the arguments for and against the death penalty, how can
it possibly be more expensive to execute somebody than to keep him/her in
prison for life?
Pure math.

Assume it costs $1,000/week to keep someone in prison.

That is $52,000/year.

To simplify the math, call it $60,000/year.

If you keep a person in jail 60 years the cost is:

(60years)*($60,000/year) = $3,600,000 lifetime.

The legal costs for a capital case including appeals far exceeds
$3,600,000.

Also the jail costs continue to accrue thus increasing costs while the
legal process continues.

The only people who make out are the lawyers.

Lew

There is a flaw in that argument.
You have not taken into account the fact that there wll also be lawyers fees
for the guy who gets life in prison.
I agree that the lawyers win whichever route is taken but capital punishment
certainly reduces the cost to the taxpayer.

It's not an argument, just an unsubstantiated contention.
No listing of costs, no sources.
Besides that, the cost of incarceration is bourn by the taxpayer.
The great part of legal costs opposing a death sentence are bourn by
anti-death penalty activists and contributors, and they also bear the
responsibility for and most of the costs of years of incarceration due
to delay in carrying out the sentence.
It's akin to the murderer of parents asking for mercy because he's an
orphan.
Not arguing the death penalty here, just faulty argument.
Where are the myth-busters when you need them?

--Vic

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

Americans take ship back! - update

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

Americans take ship back! - update

"Edgar" wrote in
:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote:

That sounds about right, and I'm opposed to the death penalty.

So am I.

Having actually been in an execution chamber gives you a whole
different perspective to the process.

It also is a lot less expensive to incarcerate some one for life than
it is to execute them.

Leaving aside the arguments for and against the death penalty, how
can it possibly be more expensive to execute somebody than to keep
him/her in prison for life?

Leaving the switch on too long....He's a pretty good load!

Americans take ship back! - update

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Edgar" wrote:

Leaving aside the arguments for and against the death penalty, how can
it possibly be more expensive to execute somebody than to keep him/her
in prison for life?

Pure math.

Assume it costs $1,000/week to keep someone in prison.

That is $52,000/year.

To simplify the math, call it $60,000/year.

If you keep a person in jail 60 years the cost is:

(60years)*($60,000/year) = $3,600,000 lifetime.

The legal costs for a capital case including appeals far exceeds
$3,600,000.

Also the jail costs continue to accrue thus increasing costs while the
legal process continues.

The only people who make out are the lawyers.

Lew

There is a flaw in that argument.
You have not taken into account the fact that there wll also be lawyers
fees for the guy who gets life in prison.
I agree that the lawyers win whichever route is taken but capital
punishment certainly reduces the cost to the taxpayer.

Not really... sure there's the occaisonal attorney, but mostly they rot in
jail.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Americans take ship back! - update

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:45:06 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Not really... sure there's the occaisonal attorney, but mostly they rot in
jail.

The "Human Rights" folks don't get nearly as het up about a life sentence,
as compared to a death sentence. Doesn't bring in as many contributions or
get as much publicity for them.

So, you're saying that people concerned about human rights shouldn't be too
concerned about those in prison?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Americans take ship back! - update

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:37:40 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

The "Human Rights" folks don't get nearly as het up about a life
sentence,
as compared to a death sentence. Doesn't bring in as many contributions
or
get as much publicity for them.

So, you're saying that people concerned about human rights shouldn't be
too
concerned about those in prison?

I think what I said was pretty clear. But I'm sure you'll insist on the
last
word.

I'm sure I'll insist that you answer my question before you take your marble
and depart. BTW, what does "het" mean?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Americans take ship back! - update

OT Dialect (was Americans take ship.. )

Gogarty wrote:
... what does "het" mean?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

It's "het up." Het by itself means nothing. To get "all het up" is to get all
worked up over something trivial.

Past tense of heat = heated, het, het up ??
pt of meet = met, met up
pt of say = said
pt of weave = wove
pt of speak = spoke, spoke up, spake
pt of break = broke, brake ??
pt of brake = braked
pt of shine = shone, shined, shined up
pt of cleeve = cloven, cleft, cleeved ???
pt of slide = slid
pt of hide = hid , hid up ??

There's nowt so funny/queer/weird as folks....