Poll: Death penalty vs Life in Prison

[theIowaHawk]

Wrong. One year or more is prison.

Ok, so you disagree with:

Iowa Code 903.1(1)(b):
b. For a serious misdemeanor, there shall be a fine of at
least three hundred fifteen dollars but not to exceed one thousand
eight hundred seventy-five dollars. In addition, the court may also
order imprisonment not to exceed one year.

Last I checked, which was quite a while ago, a year was 365 days.

903.4 - Place of Confinement:
All persons sentenced to confinement for a period of one year or
less shall be confined in a place to be furnished by the county where
the conviction was had unless the person is presently committed to
the custody of the director of the Iowa department of corrections, in
which case the provisions of section 901.8 apply. All persons
sentenced to confinement for a period of more than one year shall be
committed to the custody of the director of the Iowa department of
corrections to be confined in a place to be designated by the
director and the cost of the confinement shall be borne by the state.
The director may contract with local governmental units for the use
of detention or correctional facilities maintained by the units for
the confinement of such persons.

So, if you aren't a CO, but work at the prison, care to define your work-label?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Obviously a person could spend much longer than 365 days in jail if awaiting trial.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I would agree on both points. I certainly agree with the first point. I don't think the state should have the right to take a life as punishment for a crime. I believe this for a lot of reasons, but not the least of which is our imperfect system of justice. As horrible as it is to take decades of someone's life away through an incorrect guilty verdict, you can at least let that person out of prison and give them some cash. You can't unkill anyone.

The more horrible to endure is obviously a personal thing and we shouldn't base our laws on these kinds of things. I think I would tend to agree that a life in prison with no chance of parole would be brutal to endure mentally....but every day you draw breath is a day where you can find something good in life (though it wouldn't be easy to keep that outlook in the can).

Exactly this. Clearly there are many offenders who work tirelessly not to be executed and spend their life in prison. So all of us who would say we would choose life must admit we are doing so from a very detached viewpoint. Put us in that situation and we certainly may change our minds. That said, some have requested, and demanded the death penalty. I'm not sure I would steadfastly deny them that, which corresponds to my belief that suicide and doctor-assisted suicide is a person's personal, private right.

 

[IMCC965]

Ok, so you disagree with:

Iowa Code 903.1(1)(b):
b. For a serious misdemeanor, there shall be a fine of at
least three hundred fifteen dollars but not to exceed one thousand
eight hundred seventy-five dollars. In addition, the court may also
order imprisonment not to exceed one year.

Last I checked, which was quite a while ago, a year was 365 days.

903.4 - Place of Confinement:
All persons sentenced to confinement for a period of one year or
less shall be confined in a place to be furnished by the county where
the conviction was had unless the person is presently committed to
the custody of the director of the Iowa department of corrections, in
which case the provisions of section 901.8 apply. All persons
sentenced to confinement for a period of more than one year shall be
committed to the custody of the director of the Iowa department of
corrections to be confined in a place to be designated by the
director and the cost of the confinement shall be borne by the state.
The director may contract with local governmental units for the use
of detention or correctional facilities maintained by the units for
the confinement of such persons.

So, if you aren't a CO, but work at the prison, care to define your work-label?

This just confirms what I've been saying. County means JAIL and DOC means PRISON. Thank you.

And no, I won't. Once someone knows my title, other doors of privacy open.

You do realize that a CO is just one of MANY professions that operate in a prison?

 

[Vroom_C14]

Work camps... No possibility for parole.
Death penalty? Hardly a punishment.

Paying for those to stay alive for 60 years is a punishment to all the tax payers (including the victims family).

 

[IMCC965]

So, in other words, after blowing a gasket, you are agreeing with me on all my points except for the 364 day stuff. Which may be true in your jurisdiction, but not everywhere.

You would be more credible if you would just admit that you were wrong.

Do you mean the Sixth District? It all falls under the same law. All 99 counties (aka Sheriff's departments) deliver thier inmates to IMCC where they are processed and reassigned to the prison that fits their needs. Some stay here, but most are transported to the 8 other prisons located within the state.

We currently have around 980 inmates as of today. Most are reception, some are GP and some are classified as "patients".

 

[theIowaHawk]

This just confirms what I've been saying. County means JAIL and DOC means PRISON. Thank you.

And no, I won't. Once someone knows my title, other doors of privacy open.

You do realize that a CO is just one of MANY professions that operate in a prison?

Fair enough, but my response clearly does not support your 364 claim. It doesn't matter, I was pointing out that, in your nitpicking, your nits can be picked.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Paying for those to stay alive for 60 years is a punishment to all the tax payers (including the victims family).

Well it's not a punishment, at least it shouldn't be considered that way.

 

[IMCC965]

Fair enough, but my response clearly does not support your 364 claim. It doesn't matter, I was pointing out that, in your nitpicking, your nits can be picked.

I consider our diatribe now closed. Deal? I kind of like the way it ended, don't you?

 

[theIowaHawk]

I consider our diatribe now closed. Deal? I kind of like the way it ended, don't you?

Other than you not knowing what a diatribe is, yes, we can conclude our nitpicking discussion.

 

[cigaretteman]

Paying for those to stay alive for 60 years is a punishment to all the tax payers (including the victims family).

Actually, it's far cheaper than executing them.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Actually, it's far cheaper than executing them.

You realize that posting this over and over doesn't help, right ciggy?

 

[cigaretteman]

You realize that posting this over and over doesn't help, right ciggy?

Sadly, yes.

 

[IMCC965]

Other than you not knowing what a diatribe is, yes, we can conclude our nitpicking discussion.

I think the term "criticism" applies in this case, don't you?


a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism:

 

[theIowaHawk]

I think the term "criticism" applies in this case, don't you?

a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism:

Are you defining diatribe?

"a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something."

I wouldn't say either of us were doing that, and certainly we couldn't have been doing it together. Its something one does to another, not in the collective.

 

[IMCC965]

Are you defining diatribe?

"a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something."

I wouldn't say either of us were doing that, and certainly we couldn't have been doing it together. Its something one does to another, not in the collective.

Point taken.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Actually, it's far cheaper than executing them.

It shouldn't be - there is no need for a team of 20 doctors to make sure the 30 injections are given appropriately.

Cement shoes and a short plank into 100ft of water will do it.

 

[naturalmwa]

It shouldn't be - there is no need for a team of 20 doctors to make sure the 30 injections are given appropriately.

Cement shoes and a short plank into 100ft of water will do it.

I have a hunch its not medical expenses that make executions costly.

 

[Vroom_C14]

I have a hunch its not medical expenses that make executions costly.

Nah, it is a combination of the medical and appeals...

 

[HRiscool]

Actually, it's far cheaper than executing them.

Prove it

 

[naturalmwa]

Prove it

Is your google broken? Apparently is about 10 times the cost. Shocked me too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...g-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/

 

[cigaretteman]

Prove it

Here's the conclusion of one study:

"Our research has revealed that $4 billion of state and federal taxpayer money has been expended administering the death penalty in California since 1978, with a cost in 2009 of approximately $184 million above what taxpayers would have spent without the death penalty… These totals do not include the additional funds the state is poised to spend to maintain the current broken system...

In cases in which a defendant faces a maximum penalty of life without the possibility of parole, rather than the death penalty, there is no penalty phase trial at all. Thus, the government would not incur these costly expenditures if the death penalty were abolished…

The costs associated with death penalty trials that took place between 1983 and 2006 averaged about $1 million more per trial than the costs of average non–death penalty homicide trials. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that there are several significant, easily identifiable costs incurred in every death penalty trial that are not incurred in non–death penalty homicide."

You can read more studies
at:
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

 

[theIowaHawk]

Yes, but you must take in to account some people's wish to simply shoot them after conviction. Conviction (would happen with life sentence or dp available), walk out back, bang.

Clearly that would be cheap, and they are all for it.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I've made my opinion known on this many times, but I also argue for the cost/benefit approach in regards to the actual trial itself. I'm on board with a state having the death penalty, if it is only used for "guilty-plea-inducement."

Take the Aurora Colorado movie theater guy. Last I heard (while back) they were seeking the DP, they were going to have a total jury pool of like 10,000 people, necessitating that thousands would have to be selected, in person, and through questionnaires. To get down to 12 jurors and alternates they would have to take months, I repeat, months imo to seat that jury. That is before the case presentation even begins.

That must be at insane costs. I don't know whether he would accept it, but if they just offered life in prison, they could possibly forgo this whole damn circus.

 

[naturalmwa]

I've made my opinion known on this many times, but I also argue for the cost/benefit approach in regards to the actual trial itself. I'm on board with a state having the death penalty, if it is only used for "guilty-plea-inducement."

Take the Aurora Colorado movie theater guy. Last I heard (while back) they were seeking the DP, they were going to have a total jury pool of like 10,000 people, necessitating that thousands would have to be selected, in person, and through questionnaires. To get down to 12 jurors and alternates they would have to take months, I repeat, months imo to seat that jury. That is before the case presentation even begins.

That must be at insane costs. I don't know whether he would accept it, but if they just offered life in prison, they could possibly forgo this whole damn circus.

I disagree. In fact it seems like a form of torture. Plea bargains in general seem unjust. A way of scaring potentially innocent people into subjugation. They should be unconstitutional.

 

[HRiscool]

Is your google broken? Apparently is about 10 times the cost. Shocked me too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...g-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/

Explain to the board in your best liberal tradition why tax money should pay for their appeals

 

[theIowaHawk]

I disagree. In fact it seems like a form of torture. Plea bargains in general seem unjust. A way of scaring potentially innocent people into subjugation. They should be unconstitutional.

Interesting. It presupposes actual innocence. I like it. Both the innocent and the guilty would be far more prejudiced by this though, in reality.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Explain to the board in your best liberal tradition why tax money should pay for their appeals

Seems fairly simple: A person has a right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. The 6th Amendment. Now if you believe the 6th only applies to the actual trial, it ignores the long and rich history of appeals as part of the "defense". For example: Jailing black person for being black. Lowest court judge says, "well, its in the law, I'm bound." Appeals court judge echoes that. State Supreme Court Judge says, "yep, we're a bunch of racists, but the law be the law." Finally, the SCOTUS says, "Y'all are idiots" and reverses. His defense incorporates all of it.

Also, a main point of trial, and imprisoning people, is to imprison the right people. Many, many, many studies have shown that less-effective counsel (or none) leads to imprisoning the wrong people, something society should not want.

After all of that, it is simple equal protection. A person in prison, but poor, can't, in reality, get representation. A person in prison, but not poor, can. It fundamentally treats classes of people differently, even within the larger class of criminal.

It would, imo, make more sense to get rid of all appeals than get rid of public-pay representation. But no, I am not advocating for the former.

 

[naturalmwa]

Explain to the board in your best liberal tradition why tax money should pay for their appeals

Justice. Money shouldn't be a factor in a person's finding of guilt or innocence. And you owe me an avatar!

 

[naturalmwa]

Interesting. It presupposes actual innocence. I like it. Both the innocent and the guilty would be far more prejudiced by this though, in reality.

How do you figure? The state would actually have to prove the person is guilty rather than scare people that the jury won't like them.

 

[theIowaHawk]

How do you figure? The state would actually have to prove the person is guilty rather than scare people that the jury won't like them.

Not that aspect I'm worried about. People are convicted wrongfully, and rightfully, all the time. A plea deal is almost always for a lesser crime/punishment.

So, although more innocent people should get off, those who don't will be worse off than before.

Example: A wife says her husband choked her (2 years in Iowa), husband says it was in self defense. Offer is for a simple misdemeanor (0-30 days). Obviously, he is better off with an acquittal, but if he is convicted, he is now a federal felon, and potentially spending time in prison.

ALSO, this is a terribly byproduct of the system (and seen on the most recent John Olliver), that husband may be sitting in jail awaiting that trial, because he can't post bond. So, with a plea deal he could be out immediately, or within a few days, without ability of a plea deal, he is in until trial.

 

[naturalmwa]

Not that aspect I'm worried about. People are convicted wrongfully, and rightfully, all the time. A plea deal is almost always for a lesser crime/punishment.

So, although more innocent people should get off, those who don't will be worse off than before.

Example: A wife says her husband choked her (2 years in Iowa), husband says it was in self defense. Offer is for a simple misdemeanor (0-30 days). Obviously, he is better off with an acquittal, but if he is convicted, he is now a federal felon, and potentially spending time in prison.

ALSO, this is a terribly byproduct of the system (and seen on the most recent John Olliver), that husband may be sitting in jail awaiting that trial, because he can't post bond. So, with a plea deal he could be out immediately, or within a few days, without ability of a plea deal, he is in until trial.

Now the husband has a record, loses his job, can't find another and can't see his kids. Hell of a price to extort someone into paying if they are really innocent. Its legalized blackmail. The state should be held to a higher standard and seek justice no matter what deals the charged wants to make. Either make their case or drop the charges. Deal making injects too much politics in what should be a blind justice system.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I don't disagree. But one alternative is all of those things plus prison. So, both sides want it, it won't be going away.

Also guilt is not as black and white as some wish. Ba dum tish. Like my above example, self defense is a vague term that is largely subjective. It isn't as simple as "did you or did you not commit the crime." A lot of crimes are this way, there are usually mitigating circumstances. A prosecutor and defendant can take those in to account before making the decision.

 

[HRiscool]

Here's the conclusion of one study:

"Our research has revealed that $4 billion of state and federal taxpayer money has been expended administering the death penalty in California since 1978, with a cost in 2009 of approximately $184 million above what taxpayers would have spent without the death penalty… These totals do not include the additional funds the state is poised to spend to maintain the current broken system...

In cases in which a defendant faces a maximum penalty of life without the possibility of parole, rather than the death penalty, there is no penalty phase trial at all. Thus, the government would not incur these costly expenditures if the death penalty were abolished…

The costs associated with death penalty trials that took place between 1983 and 2006 averaged about $1 million more per trial than the costs of average non–death penalty homicide trials. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that there are several significant, easily identifiable costs incurred in every death penalty trial that are not incurred in non–death penalty homicide."

You can read more studies
at:
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

So basically you libs won't let society kill kiddie rapists and then you rape the taxpayer to boot by giving the sickos endless appeals. Kinda a twofer screw job to the taxpayer. Just one more time tell us how proud you are to destroy what it took 200 years to build

 

[naturalmwa]

So basically you libs won't let society kill kiddie rapists and then you rape the taxpayer to boot by giving the sickos endless appeals. Kinda a twofer screw job to the taxpayer. Just one more time tell us how proud you are to destroy what it took 200 years to build

This was always the goal. Typical of a con to hate freedom and justice, those are liberal values. Maybe America just isn't your cup of tea? I'm sure you could find a legal system with less protections for the accused elsewhere.

 

[theIowaHawk]

So basically you libs won't let society kill kiddie rapists and then you rape the taxpayer to boot by giving the sickos endless appeals. Kinda a twofer screw job to the taxpayer. Just one more time tell us how proud you are to destroy what it took 200 years to build

Is there a state who kills kiddie rapists?

Are these children who rape, or people who rape children?

You realize the state's often paid for legal defense 200 years ago right?