Reader comments
Marjorie Cortez: Which state's philosophy on death penalty is best?
43 comments | Read story
Deterrent? | 6:17 a.m. May 5, 2009
I'm not sure I'm qualified enough to say if the death penalty is a
deterrent either. However, The problem with the justice system is that there is
no justice for the victim. I'm not so crass as to say "They killed
someon, let's kill them." That being said, however, what exactly is
the deterrent behind life without parole? The thought behind incarceration in
jail is to hopefully reform the individual to help them see the error of their
ways. If they have no hope of returning to society, then they remain ever a
burden to society financially. I don't know the costs offhand for how much
it costs to house an inmate. But compare the cost of that to the cost of
execution. As a law abiding individual, WE continue to be the victims as our tax
dollar goes to house these criminals and provide for their lives. In my heart, I
have to believe that for the betterment of society, life without parole should
be done away and the death penalty put in it's place. It's a tough
situation, but should we be punished, financially, for their crimes?
Pete in Texas
Pete in Texas
Death Penalty | 6:33 a.m. May 5, 2009
Come to Texas, honey!
As comedian Ron White says
"In Texas we have the death penalty. And we USE it.
Thats right, if you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back. Thats our policy.
Theyre trying to pass a bill right now through the Texas Legislature that will speed up the process of execution in heinous crimes where theres more than three credible eye witnesses...
Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty - my states puttin in an express lane."
I couldn't agree more. I have a hard time believing that a PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.
Ask yourself how many of our criminals would be committing even petty theft if they lived in Pakistan, Iran or some other country where the penalty could be the loss of a hand, immediately.
Answer - none.
Result - crime deterred.
As comedian Ron White says
"In Texas we have the death penalty. And we USE it.
Thats right, if you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back. Thats our policy.
Theyre trying to pass a bill right now through the Texas Legislature that will speed up the process of execution in heinous crimes where theres more than three credible eye witnesses...
Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty - my states puttin in an express lane."
I couldn't agree more. I have a hard time believing that a PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.
Ask yourself how many of our criminals would be committing even petty theft if they lived in Pakistan, Iran or some other country where the penalty could be the loss of a hand, immediately.
Answer - none.
Result - crime deterred.
Comments continue below
I can go either way | 6:36 a.m. May 5, 2009
When I hear stories of innocent people almost getting executed, I become against
the death penalty.
All it takes for me to become for it again is to hear of someone stealing a child at a store while the parent was distracted for a moment, and then torturing and killing the child.
If you want me to vote a certain way, tell me a story.
All it takes for me to become for it again is to hear of someone stealing a child at a store while the parent was distracted for a moment, and then torturing and killing the child.
If you want me to vote a certain way, tell me a story.
@Disagree | 6:38 a.m. May 5, 2009
I think you have an interesting idea, the problem I have is it does not
guarantee the jury's will get it right and in fact we know that jurys do
occasionally get it wrong and in my mind even one innocent life taken by mistake
is to many. There is no short cut to justice, we have to be certain we got it
right before even considering taking another humans life. .
Here is a story | 6:47 a.m. May 5, 2009
I was a cop and very pro death penalty until my wife was murdered. I then
realized that the death penalty would not bring her back.
It costs more to carry out the death penalty than to house a murderer for life. We cannot redo a mistake after the death penalty has been carried out. If killing the killer brought back the victim, I would consider it, but an eye for an eye just leaves a lot of blind people.
We claim to be a Christian nation. Protect us from the murderer, yes, retaliate, no!
It costs more to carry out the death penalty than to house a murderer for life. We cannot redo a mistake after the death penalty has been carried out. If killing the killer brought back the victim, I would consider it, but an eye for an eye just leaves a lot of blind people.
We claim to be a Christian nation. Protect us from the murderer, yes, retaliate, no!
Kevin | 6:51 a.m. May 5, 2009
Government can err. Government can become corrupt. Therefore, government
should not have the power to kill it's citizens. Revenge should not be
encapsulated into the legal code. Killing is immoral. QED.
marcus | 6:59 a.m. May 5, 2009
I agree totally with "Death Penalty" talking about Texas and the
middle east. Why do we have to be soft on people who are only going to hurt me
or someone else? It just doesn't make any sense. If the person is a known
murderer then why go soft on them. Like I say the earlier comment of cutting
off someone's hand for stealing sure seems like it would make me think
twice about stealing.
An Argument for Yes | 7:14 a.m. May 5, 2009
The death penalty should not be about vengeance. The death penalty should not be
about retribution. The death penalty is about the sanctity of life.
Here's how it boils down to me:
- If we value life, then we will exact the ultimate penalty against someone who, with malice and aforethought, deprives another of it.
- If we do not value life, then we will allow people to commit murder and require something less than a proportional consequence.
Unfortunately, it appears to me that our society values human life less than ever.
As an aside, it saddens me when there is celebration surrounding an execution - it should be a time of extreme sadness that our society has spawned a person whose actions are so horrific as to require his death.
Here's how it boils down to me:
- If we value life, then we will exact the ultimate penalty against someone who, with malice and aforethought, deprives another of it.
- If we do not value life, then we will allow people to commit murder and require something less than a proportional consequence.
Unfortunately, it appears to me that our society values human life less than ever.
As an aside, it saddens me when there is celebration surrounding an execution - it should be a time of extreme sadness that our society has spawned a person whose actions are so horrific as to require his death.
If we are to abolish............ | 7:23 a.m. May 5, 2009
........the death penalty, the first step should be taken by those who commit
the crime itself.
Mike | 7:33 a.m. May 5, 2009
What a load. The reason that Utah's death row inmates linger for 20+ years
is because the courts let them. There is not one inmate on Utah's death
row where there is any chance that they are innocent. Garner, Lafferty, et al.
They keep bringing up small insignificant points and the courts let them.
Pierre and Andrews were both guilty. Andrews, even though he didn't kill anyone, participated in the crime. He deserved what he got. He was there, he could have stopped it. Besides, he helped withy the Drano.
Pierre and Andrews were both guilty. Andrews, even though he didn't kill anyone, participated in the crime. He deserved what he got. He was there, he could have stopped it. Besides, he helped withy the Drano.
Another Coloradan in Utah | 7:50 a.m. May 5, 2009
Hi Marjorie. I grew up around the Denver area myself and have lived in Utah for
7 years. There is a huge cultural difference between Utah and Colorado. I still
suffer some culture shock every time I leave my house and I'm LDS!
Each state is different in how it treats capital crime and punishment. The laws of a state will reflect the culture or prevailing philosophies of that state. Colorado used to be a very red state which has change with an influx of people from California. But that doesn't explain 1 execution in 42 years. I think if you look at the laws of Utah vs. Colorado the Utah laws probably direct the judge to carry out harsher sentances than Colorado.
Utah philosophy on crime is very much an eye for an eye. I think there is something to the economic argument. Personnaly I think life in solitary confinement is a punishment worse than death. You have the rest of you life to contemplate what hell is going to be like!
Each state is different in how it treats capital crime and punishment. The laws of a state will reflect the culture or prevailing philosophies of that state. Colorado used to be a very red state which has change with an influx of people from California. But that doesn't explain 1 execution in 42 years. I think if you look at the laws of Utah vs. Colorado the Utah laws probably direct the judge to carry out harsher sentances than Colorado.
Utah philosophy on crime is very much an eye for an eye. I think there is something to the economic argument. Personnaly I think life in solitary confinement is a punishment worse than death. You have the rest of you life to contemplate what hell is going to be like!
Real injustice | 7:51 a.m. May 5, 2009
The real injustice happens when a murder takes an innocent life and then gets
free room and board for life paid for by the innocent. The guilty should not be
supported by the labor of the innocent.
Re: Tell Me a Story | 7:52 a.m. May 5, 2009
The real cost to the death penalty is not just the housing of the criminals for
life, but the costly trials and appeals process that jacks up the cost. We
believe in swift justice, but the current system has taken that away. There is
too much red tape.
There should be capital punishment for capital crimes where there is first degree, premeditated murder. The state should protect society. I'm not worried about it being a deterrent; although I think it is a deterrent. I'm not worried whether it's a Christian decision either. The Old Testament shows a God willing to allow capital punishment; and this from an unchanging God.
Does the government have a responsibility to protect the citizens of the country from these predators? Yes. Are they fulfilling this responsibility with the current system? No. Is there a problem with the current system of endless appeals? Yes.
Capital punishment was never intended to "bring" anyone back. It is intended to protect society from those evil people that will prey on the defenseless. I remember the story about someone in the middle east cutting off a father's head; playing soccer with it as family watched.
There should be capital punishment for capital crimes where there is first degree, premeditated murder. The state should protect society. I'm not worried about it being a deterrent; although I think it is a deterrent. I'm not worried whether it's a Christian decision either. The Old Testament shows a God willing to allow capital punishment; and this from an unchanging God.
Does the government have a responsibility to protect the citizens of the country from these predators? Yes. Are they fulfilling this responsibility with the current system? No. Is there a problem with the current system of endless appeals? Yes.
Capital punishment was never intended to "bring" anyone back. It is intended to protect society from those evil people that will prey on the defenseless. I remember the story about someone in the middle east cutting off a father's head; playing soccer with it as family watched.
Barney | 7:55 a.m. May 5, 2009
I am for life without the possibility of parole in a dungeon. That's a
more vicious punishment than a quick, easy death.
to Real injustice: | 8:00 a.m. May 5, 2009
I can't understand why people think being incarceration is a joy, it would
absolutely drive me crazy. I'd rather see the person who harmed me or a
family member to live life locked up and then deal with God.
I don't understand | 8:08 a.m. May 5, 2009
I don't understand why people reason that we should be more careful with
the death penalty because it "can not be undone". You can't give
back the years someone spends in prison either.
I don't understand why some find it more humane to sentance someone to life in prison. Even if they are found innocent later, they miss the oportunity to pursue dreams, have a marriage, raise a family, pursue a career, etc. Then when they are too old and institutionalized to take care of themselves, they have little or no family and friends, and have not prospects for a future, to release them.
Are you seriously going to say that the death penalty can't be undone, but this life sentance can? Either way you have taken his life.
So help me to understand why we need to be more careful when sentancing the death penalty instead of life in prison?
I don't understand why some find it more humane to sentance someone to life in prison. Even if they are found innocent later, they miss the oportunity to pursue dreams, have a marriage, raise a family, pursue a career, etc. Then when they are too old and institutionalized to take care of themselves, they have little or no family and friends, and have not prospects for a future, to release them.
Are you seriously going to say that the death penalty can't be undone, but this life sentance can? Either way you have taken his life.
So help me to understand why we need to be more careful when sentancing the death penalty instead of life in prison?
Native Utahan | 8:15 a.m. May 5, 2009
Its a shame that Colorado has not executed a single CONVICTED killer in 42 years
and Utah in 10 years. I assume all the trials were held using the latest
scientific means available at the time and a impartial jury.If not,retrial and
execute if the facts pervail. The killers never think twice about their killing
instincts and we should not agonize over putting them where they are our of our
constant newspaper headlines and sob stories and possible parole to reinflict
the killing again. Make more cells available for lessor criminals!
No easy answer. | 8:27 a.m. May 5, 2009
I am not for allowing convicted felons to "linger."
If they are convicted of murder, then the death penalty should be carried out. We worry,and rightfully so, about the fact that an innocent person might be put to death. I think the odds are extremely slim, although it could happen. There are things, in my opinion, worse than death. One is rotting for the rest of ones life in a cell. I do not support the idea that felons should be supported from the public funds for years and years.
I think they should be required to work six days per week and up to ten hours per day. They have done things that will never allow them to live in a normal society. They have forfeited their rights. The death penalty would be a blessing to them and a relief to all of us.
If they are convicted of murder, then the death penalty should be carried out. We worry,and rightfully so, about the fact that an innocent person might be put to death. I think the odds are extremely slim, although it could happen. There are things, in my opinion, worse than death. One is rotting for the rest of ones life in a cell. I do not support the idea that felons should be supported from the public funds for years and years.
I think they should be required to work six days per week and up to ten hours per day. They have done things that will never allow them to live in a normal society. They have forfeited their rights. The death penalty would be a blessing to them and a relief to all of us.
I do understand that | 8:33 a.m. May 5, 2009
Life is sacred. If the death penalty isn't a great deterrent, the only
reason we use it is revenge. It's not about the murderer's life,
it's about the future of those who have lost a loved one. Should we
encourage people to wish and advocate for the death of another? Why develop a
legal system where this is the practice?
And since when did the Middle Eastern nations become our role models for legal reform? We have become such a bloodthirsty nation since 9/11.
And if God is unchanging, then we should stone people for adultery and witchcraft and refuse to have contact with women when they are menstrating. The Son of that unchanging God was very critical of portions of the Law of Moses.
And since when did the Middle Eastern nations become our role models for legal reform? We have become such a bloodthirsty nation since 9/11.
And if God is unchanging, then we should stone people for adultery and witchcraft and refuse to have contact with women when they are menstrating. The Son of that unchanging God was very critical of portions of the Law of Moses.
No "Best" policy. But follow it | 9:15 a.m. May 5, 2009
I don't know which State has the best policy, but I think if you have the
death penalty you should use it.
So I'm OK with the States that don't have the death penalty, and I'm OK with the states who DO have it and DO use it. My main issue is with States that have the death penalty and they sentence people to it regularly, but they NEVER carry out the punishment prescribed by the law.
So I'm OK with the States that don't have the death penalty, and I'm OK with the states who DO have it and DO use it. My main issue is with States that have the death penalty and they sentence people to it regularly, but they NEVER carry out the punishment prescribed by the law.
Joe Moe | 9:18 a.m. May 5, 2009
Those who favor life in prison to the death penalty, and pretend to do so with
the argument that it's "a much worse punishment," I have to
think: why the vengeful streak? Does it really matter which is a worse
punishment? If the goal is worse punishment, can't we come up with even
worse?!?
The goals should be: protect society (first), and promote the well-being of the criminal (second). I know some don't care about the well-being of the criminal, but the truth is, a certain segment of our population is criminal; and their well-being makes for a stronger society.
What is the well-being of a criminal? Well, rehabilitation is ideal. But in capital cases, I wonder if the death penalty isn't best. A person who has committed an atrocious, premeditated murder, has not much to look forward to or to gain in this life. Let them move on.
That said, under our current system, executions really aren't happening anyway. So I'm fine with just locking them up for life. Society is protected. The person will move on in time.
The goals should be: protect society (first), and promote the well-being of the criminal (second). I know some don't care about the well-being of the criminal, but the truth is, a certain segment of our population is criminal; and their well-being makes for a stronger society.
What is the well-being of a criminal? Well, rehabilitation is ideal. But in capital cases, I wonder if the death penalty isn't best. A person who has committed an atrocious, premeditated murder, has not much to look forward to or to gain in this life. Let them move on.
That said, under our current system, executions really aren't happening anyway. So I'm fine with just locking them up for life. Society is protected. The person will move on in time.
@I do understand that | 9:32 a.m. May 5, 2009
"And since when did the Middle Eastern nations become our role models for
legal reform?"
Exactly! In 2007, the USA ranked fifth in the world for executions. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan beat us but we beat Iraq.
"We have become such a bloodthirsty nation since 9/11."
We were bloodthirsty before that. After all, 9/11 became an excuse for the slaughter of about a million people in Iraq. Das Bushreich was just waiting for the chance.
Exactly! In 2007, the USA ranked fifth in the world for executions. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan beat us but we beat Iraq.
"We have become such a bloodthirsty nation since 9/11."
We were bloodthirsty before that. After all, 9/11 became an excuse for the slaughter of about a million people in Iraq. Das Bushreich was just waiting for the chance.
Mark B | 9:44 a.m. May 5, 2009
The author asks the question: Which state has the best system for handling this
matter? That's a reasonable question, but I would take it a step further:
Which state system results in the LOWEST rate of murder/homicide? The fact that
Texas executes someone about every week disqualifies it as being the
"best" system, because every execution represents a past failure to
protect someone. In other words - we should reverse the question from "What
should we do to this person?" to "What can we do for ourselves to make
things safer?"
realitycheck | 10:06 a.m. May 5, 2009
fact of the matter is, there should be no death penalty. It costs more to put a
prisoner to death than it does to lock them up forever.
just lock them up and throw away the key. saves your conscience and saves money.
just lock them up and throw away the key. saves your conscience and saves money.
States Rights | 10:53 a.m. May 5, 2009
Excellent example of States rights! Isn't it glorious to have diversity?
How boring/drab would this country be if all states were the same. Each state
has law reflecting its particular culture, needs, and beliefs. We need to have
stronger States rights and even more diversity! You can have your choice of 50
different states in which to live, and can select one that closely matches your
personal belief system, and feel more at home there and live in unity with like
minded people.
States Rights? | 11:38 a.m. May 5, 2009
States rights is right, states should be allowed to discrimate against anyone
they want and if you dont like it to bad leave, if you are poor and dont have
the money to leave to bad for you......oh wait
re: I do understand | 11:57 a.m. May 5, 2009
A agree that life is sacred. However, life is not the ability to breathe,
rather, it's the ability to have dreams, live, set goals, have a future.
Why are you okay taking a person's life from them in that regards?
By your rationale, the only reason to put someone into prison is for revenge, since prison is also not a deterant. The fact is, there are 3 reasons for punishment of a crime, and you only want to focus on the one.
1. Deterant
2. Protection - To remove the perpetrator from society to protect society.
3. Punishment - Punishment is not revenge. There needs to be a consequence for your actions.
Capital punishment may or may not not be more of a deterant, and it may or may not be a worse punishment than life in prison (many would rather die). However, it most certainly protects society more, as there is no chance of escape/ release.
By your rationale, the only reason to put someone into prison is for revenge, since prison is also not a deterant. The fact is, there are 3 reasons for punishment of a crime, and you only want to focus on the one.
1. Deterant
2. Protection - To remove the perpetrator from society to protect society.
3. Punishment - Punishment is not revenge. There needs to be a consequence for your actions.
Capital punishment may or may not not be more of a deterant, and it may or may not be a worse punishment than life in prison (many would rather die). However, it most certainly protects society more, as there is no chance of escape/ release.
States Rights | 12:20 p.m. May 5, 2009
@ 11:38
Nowhere did I mention discrimination. Re-read with an open mind and you may actually agree that the rule of law means that law MUST be constitutional, and then from that point forward may reflect the local needs.
Would you rather have no diversity? Have Utah law set the pace for each and every other state? Or would you rather have Utah follow Texas's lead?
Nowhere did I mention discrimination. Re-read with an open mind and you may actually agree that the rule of law means that law MUST be constitutional, and then from that point forward may reflect the local needs.
Would you rather have no diversity? Have Utah law set the pace for each and every other state? Or would you rather have Utah follow Texas's lead?
@11:57 am | 12:35 p.m. May 5, 2009
I can see that you are really thinking about this so do not mean to be demining
or rude but I had some thoughts on your post.
1. The death penalty has been shown to not be a deterrent which makes sense since most murders are crimes of passion (outside the realm of reasoned thought)which means they are done without thought of the consequence.
2.so for this to be valid we have to assume the only means to "protect" society is to kill someone already in custody (which frankly does not speak well of us as a country)?
3. Punishment is meant to modify behaviors therefore killing someone cannot really modify their behavior because their dead.
Again these are just my thoughts based on your post so take them for what they are worth.
1. The death penalty has been shown to not be a deterrent which makes sense since most murders are crimes of passion (outside the realm of reasoned thought)which means they are done without thought of the consequence.
2.so for this to be valid we have to assume the only means to "protect" society is to kill someone already in custody (which frankly does not speak well of us as a country)?
3. Punishment is meant to modify behaviors therefore killing someone cannot really modify their behavior because their dead.
Again these are just my thoughts based on your post so take them for what they are worth.
@12:35 p.m. | 1:00 p.m. May 5, 2009
I would rather states respect the constitution which includes individuals rights
to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. If I read to much into what
you where saying and that is not what you where implying then I apologize for my
over reaction.
@ 12:35 | 1:10 p.m. May 5, 2009
Finally, some reasoned discussion on this board!
I am quite persuaded by the protection argument in particular.
I would like to chime in with the thought that penalty of death is the ultimate modification of behavior.
I am quite persuaded by the protection argument in particular.
I would like to chime in with the thought that penalty of death is the ultimate modification of behavior.
Frank | 1:15 p.m. May 5, 2009
I moved to Utah because I wanted the right to be executed by a firing squad
should I ever deserve it.
re@11:57 | 1:24 p.m. May 5, 2009
Copied right out of Websters:
Punishment
noun
1. the act of punishing.
2. the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault.
3. a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.
4. severe handling or treatment.
I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that punishment is to change someone's behavior. It has no such meaning. The term you're probably looking for is reabilitate.
Going back to my earliest post. I don't understand excactly how someone thinks that life in prison accomplishes any of the above 3 reasons better than the death penalty. The only attempt I have heard is that life is sacred and the death penalty can't be undone.
However, again going to my earliest post. I don't understand how anyone can perceive that locking someone in a cage and taking everything a person is/ has/ wants to be; basically their life, accomplishes can be undone any better than the death penalty. Sorry. I just don't understand.
Punishment
noun
1. the act of punishing.
2. the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault.
3. a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.
4. severe handling or treatment.
I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that punishment is to change someone's behavior. It has no such meaning. The term you're probably looking for is reabilitate.
Going back to my earliest post. I don't understand excactly how someone thinks that life in prison accomplishes any of the above 3 reasons better than the death penalty. The only attempt I have heard is that life is sacred and the death penalty can't be undone.
However, again going to my earliest post. I don't understand how anyone can perceive that locking someone in a cage and taking everything a person is/ has/ wants to be; basically their life, accomplishes can be undone any better than the death penalty. Sorry. I just don't understand.
Re "@11:57 am | 12:35 p.m." | 1:27 p.m. May 5, 2009
You overlooked one thing. Not ALL punishment is intended to be theraputic or
rehabilitative.
The death penalty should be reserved for such cases where rehabilitation is NOT the goal. Cases where the offender has been so depraved in his behavior when in public that this person can NEVER be trusted to be released back into public again. In these cases, why not put the purpetrator out of his missery instead of making him slowly,gradually, rot to death in jail and live a life of being battered and mistreated by other inmates for the rest of his life with no hope of ever getting out. Is that NOT torture?
How is a life sentence rehabilitative? It's not. Sometimes the punishment is more to protect the victims and the public than it is a rehab for the criminal.
The death penalty should be reserved for such cases where rehabilitation is NOT the goal. Cases where the offender has been so depraved in his behavior when in public that this person can NEVER be trusted to be released back into public again. In these cases, why not put the purpetrator out of his missery instead of making him slowly,gradually, rot to death in jail and live a life of being battered and mistreated by other inmates for the rest of his life with no hope of ever getting out. Is that NOT torture?
How is a life sentence rehabilitative? It's not. Sometimes the punishment is more to protect the victims and the public than it is a rehab for the criminal.
12:35 p.m. | 3:50 p.m. May 5, 2009
I think you make some valid points and while I do not sure I agree it is worse
to spend life in prison then be but to death (only somebody actually in that
situation would probably know) the place I am still getting hung up on is the
idea that it is the best or only way to protect society. I am not sure what it
would take to convince me of that but I am sure it is not your job to do so. I
also continue to struggle with the fact that people can be and have been wrongly
convicted of murder and I would hate to think we wrongly executed someone. again
I am not sure there is anything that will change my mind on this. thank you for
your respectful insight you have given me some perspective and something to
think about.
Dudley Sharp | 4:08 p.m. May 5, 2009
Ms. Cortez:
As jusges and juries give the death penalty, with the understanding that it should be given as the just and appropriate sanction for the crime, then we should have it carried out. I am not sure that either Colorado or Utah are the best example.
Virginia executes in 5-7 years. 65% of those sentenced to death have been executed. Only 15% of their death penalty cases are overturned. The national averages are 11 years, 14% and 36%, respectively.
Regarding deterrence, all prospects of a negative outcome deter some - there is no exception. So, yes, the death penalty deters.
In addtion, 16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
The death penalty cost issue is but the newest crisis created by the anti death penalty movement, which invent new crises, often, as soon as their previous ones have failed.
If you look at the costs and benefits of the death penalty vs life without parole, on a true apples to apples basis, there is little, if any cost savings, in getting rid of the death penalty and an actual cost savings, in some cases, by retaining it.
As jusges and juries give the death penalty, with the understanding that it should be given as the just and appropriate sanction for the crime, then we should have it carried out. I am not sure that either Colorado or Utah are the best example.
Virginia executes in 5-7 years. 65% of those sentenced to death have been executed. Only 15% of their death penalty cases are overturned. The national averages are 11 years, 14% and 36%, respectively.
Regarding deterrence, all prospects of a negative outcome deter some - there is no exception. So, yes, the death penalty deters.
In addtion, 16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
The death penalty cost issue is but the newest crisis created by the anti death penalty movement, which invent new crises, often, as soon as their previous ones have failed.
If you look at the costs and benefits of the death penalty vs life without parole, on a true apples to apples basis, there is little, if any cost savings, in getting rid of the death penalty and an actual cost savings, in some cases, by retaining it.
@frank | 4:31 p.m. May 5, 2009
Are you making plans?
Dudley Sharp | 4:47 p.m. May 5, 2009
Overwhelmingly, murderers would rather live than die.
What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
What of that more rational group, the potential murderers who choose not to murder, is it likely that they, like most of us, fear death more than life?
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
What of that more rational group, the potential murderers who choose not to murder, is it likely that they, like most of us, fear death more than life?
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
RE "12:35 p.m. | 3:50 p.m." | 5:24 p.m. May 5, 2009
12:35 p.m. | 3:50 p.m.
Of course it's not MY job to decide. It's the judge or the jury's job to decide.
I'm just expressing a general opinion, not saying who or why any specific person should be deemed unfit to ever return to society. That's up to the people who know the case, the acts, the motivations and the evil inside the person they are sentencing.
When there is no chance of being returned to society... Is the goal still rehabilitation? NO!
Of course it's not MY job to decide. It's the judge or the jury's job to decide.
I'm just expressing a general opinion, not saying who or why any specific person should be deemed unfit to ever return to society. That's up to the people who know the case, the acts, the motivations and the evil inside the person they are sentencing.
When there is no chance of being returned to society... Is the goal still rehabilitation? NO!
maobama | 5:27 p.m. May 5, 2009
they sure didn't have much trouble executing Timothy McVeigh in a timely
manner....hmmmm....very odd
My opinion | 5:27 p.m. May 5, 2009
Personally I would prefer a quick peaceful death to living with the memory of
what I did and the people I affected... not to mention the daily ordeal of
showering with Bubba and his friends.
RE: Joe Moe | 9:18 a.m | 6:04 p.m. May 5, 2009
Actually it is JUSTICE first,
then everything else that is neccessary, such as protecting the public, follows.
Exactly what is humane about locking someone in a cage for the rest of their life?
And HOW is justice met? IS a rape or making someone drink drano made "right" again by 20 or 30 years in a jail cell?
I don't know the answer, but I believe JUSTICE has something to do with applying the RIGHT punishment and and the "sinner" making the RIGHT retribution for whatever wrong they did.
then everything else that is neccessary, such as protecting the public, follows.
Exactly what is humane about locking someone in a cage for the rest of their life?
And HOW is justice met? IS a rape or making someone drink drano made "right" again by 20 or 30 years in a jail cell?
I don't know the answer, but I believe JUSTICE has something to do with applying the RIGHT punishment and and the "sinner" making the RIGHT retribution for whatever wrong they did.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- McGrady on pace for All-Star game 2:03 p.m.
- Stubborn storm, shivering nation 1:52 p.m.
- A game-wrecking Heisman finalist 1:43 p.m.
- Deputies search for hunters in Ariz. 1:38 p.m.
- Unions press to drop insurance tax 1:23 p.m.
- Obama: Troop drawdown gradual 1:10 p.m.
- Officer kills Times Square scammer 1:09 p.m.
- Bone drugs, breast cancer study 1:08 p.m.
- Obama defends wars, accepts Nobel 1:02 p.m.
- Man loses bet, has high-def TV shot 12:51 p.m.
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness
- Crash landing next to I-15
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- Few details on missing W.V. mom
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.
- I-15 expansion barreling south
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill
- Psychologist: Mitchell schizophrenic
- Mutated version of H1N1 found
- Utes crash the glass to get big win
- Letters: Global warming a lie
250 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall192
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil148
- Palin signs books, chats with fans141
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax141
- Max Hall wants to look ahead123
- Revive full food tax?104
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill101
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Time for the airing of grievances. I got a lot of problems with you people!...
Headline should read, "Officer returns fire and kills gunman in Times Square"...
I saw Pitta last week at a Jazz game and was suprised to see how tall and big...
Hey Ute fans? So explain to me how going from the Sugar Bowl one year and...
Hey Herb, The Nobel Peace Prize already was worthless. Carter got it.
If Palin is such a successful parent, why does she have an unwed teen...
"Can't see it. Help me out, if you can." Beck's argument is that Creamer's...
Roundabouts are no more frustrating than long lines at lights. They are very...
Clearly, from what we see here, our answer is no. So, we'll build more power...
We make money by exporting not importing. Just ask the Chinese.
Advertisements
If not, why have a trial in the first place?
This would ensure that the members of the jury were 100% certain that the accused was guilty, ensuring greater justice for all because the consequences were immediate in the jurors minds. There would be no dilly dallying or bargaining in those chambers merely because they are tired and want to go home.
Equal justice for the citizens and the accused.
This is how it was done for many years. And how it should be done today.
There is no justice when a family mourns for 15-20 years while their murderer lives their life in relative comfort.