You for against death penalty?

[Hobby]

Me, I really don't care either way.  I retired from Calif Dept of Corrections for medical after 16.5 years.  I worked at 5 prisons and spoke to manly lifers.  Manson... Dana Ewell... Sirhan Sirhan... Juan Corona and many more. Their freedom had been taken away and they had or have to live their lives in prison.  They aren't punished and there is no rehabilitation for them.  If a member of a family wants the murderer to be in anguish making the murderer spend rest of their life in prison will do it.  For those sentenced to death if the confess and waive appeals they can have their life ended and be at peace while family members are suffering loss of their loved one.  So if you want to punish a person make them live out their life in prison.

There is the argument of course as to the cost of lifers on taxpayers. Why keep a murderer alive for rest of their life costing around 100,000 or more per year?  This is a good point.

[zoezane]

I like your read.  Many feel that lifers that did the crime, it costs us as tax payers.  BUT ...

For the ones who did not do the crime, this is aweful. 

[bats]

When I was young and stupid(er), I was ambivalent. After all, as you suggest, LWOP is just a death sentence that takes longer.

In modern times, we know the state has killed innocent people. That's reason enough to oppose it.

[HighStepper]

George Carlin - Death Penalty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI

Video length 8:37 minutes. Dark comedy about the death penalty.
A couple of key points made by Carlin. The death penalty is not a deterrent for those who are not afraid of death. The death penalty is about people satisfying the need for revenge.
My thoughts:

• People may be on death row for years before execution. There is a very high incarceration cost with this prison population.
• With the reviews and appeals there is a very high prosecution cost.
• A disproportionate number of poor/disadvantaged people wind up with death penalty sentences.
• As pointed out by Bats, too many people have been sentenced to death when they were later shown to be innocent.

That said, if the victim is my family member, then the perpetrator should be drawn and quartered.

[Romanticlover]

I'm for it, you get one appeal and if it is denied you go straight to Mr Sparky or Mr Needle.

Cali Democrats won't execute even though the majority of residents are in favor of the death penalty, many accounting offices have proven it's cheaper to execute than to keep then on death row for 30 years.

"Any lasts requests?"
"Yes, make him extra crispy?

[Hobby]

What is really interesting is lifers who become ill cancer heart disease etc receive treatment same as anyone costing taxpayers millions of dollars for the medical per year.  I say they should be sentence to natural life and banned from open heart surgery expensive cancer treatments etc. 

[bats]

I'm for it, you get one appeal and if it is denied you go straight to Mr Sparky or Mr Needle.

Cali Democrats won't execute even though the majority of residents are in favor of the death penalty, many accounting offices have proven it's cheaper to execute than to keep then on death row for 30 years.

"Any lasts requests?"
"Yes, make him extra crispy?

So, rather than reducing the risk of killing an innocent victim, you'd limit the appeals and thus increase that risk. Seems like a backward step.

[bats]

What is really interesting is lifers who become ill cancer heart disease etc receive treatment same as anyone costing taxpayers millions of dollars for the medical per year.  I say they should be sentence to natural life and banned from open heart surgery expensive cancer treatments etc. 

What if, after an inmate dies from the condition for which he was denied treatment, we learn through DNA that he was innocent? Then we're in the same situation as any other wrongfully convicted victim on death row.

[Hobby]

What if, after an inmate dies from the condition for which he was denied treatment, we learn through DNA that he was innocent? Then we're in the same situation as any other wrongfully convicted victim on death row.

Then the state is sued for the death.  The state did not find the person guilty a 12 member jury did.  Can't treat inmates with what if.  If there is evidence of innocense the state can hold a new trial or free the person.  The state is required by law to keep inmates away from society.

[Romanticlover]

So, rather than reducing the risk of killing an innocent victim, you'd limit the appeals and thus increase that risk. Seems like a backward step.

If their DNA is at the crime scene(which is common these days) or eye-witnesses say they did the crime then they are guilty. If you execute a murderer then there's zero chance of them being a repeat offender. If an animal attacks or mauls a person they put it down(euthanize), Democrats are ok with that but not rabid humans who kill.

[Danno]

cheaper to keep them in prison than spending millions on appeals

Is it cheaper to imprison or execute?
Much to the surprise of many who, logically, would assume that shortening someone's life should be cheaper than paying for it until natural expiration, it turns out that it is actually cheaper to imprison someone for life than to execute them. In fact, it is almost 10 times cheaper! One might ask, "how can that be?"

[zoezane]

I guess lifers get to be tortued by American money.  We are so BDSM for prison.  Just watched "Prison Break".  Trump would not like being placed in a Mexican prison.  In the TVseries Netfix, I watched all the men abuse and torture each other in priosn.  Do men like BDSM?  HA HA HA

[Hobby]

cheaper to keep them in prison than spending millions on appeals

Is it cheaper to imprison or execute?
Much to the surprise of many who, logically, would assume that shortening someone's life should be cheaper than paying for it until natural expiration, it turns out that it is actually cheaper to imprison someone for life than to execute them. In fact, it is almost 10 times cheaper! One might ask, "how can that be?"

Where did you come up with this?  It's not true.  It cost way more to keep a killer incarcerated than to put them to death. When retired in 2016 it cost avg 70k to 100k per year to incarcerated.  That's if their are no medical issues.  Depending on the medical issue the cost per year could be double or more. 

[Hobby]

This is a little off topic.  Back in 2005 inmates complaint to federal authorities they weren't getting updated proper Healthcare the federal government forced California to update care at a cost of 5 billion tax dollars. Inmates started receiving care better than taxpayers.  If that wasn't enough Corrections hired hundreds doctors that never saw Inmates.  When a Inmates was sick or injured they are transported to local hospitals to avoid liability.

[bats]

If their DNA is at the crime scene(which is common these days) or eye-witnesses say they did the crime then they are guilty. If you execute a murderer then there's zero chance of them being a repeat offender.

I was talking about cases where DNA disproves a person's involvement in a capital crime years after sentencing. Considering the stakes, this has proved quite common. If you execute an innocent man there's zero chance of them retaining their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

By the way, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. For a good (albeit fictional) illustration, see the excellent movie Twelve Angry Men with Henry Fonda.