SA Footy

Q. wrote:

scoob wrote:

Q. wrote:Regarding cost to taxpayer, it's been demonstrated that the overall cost of being on death row exceeds the cost of that that same person being sentenced to life without parole. The substantial cost increase cannot even be justified as the deterrence aspect is completely speculative.

Here is a brilliant paper examining the situation in Colorado:

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/criminal-law-review/issues/v03-1/Cost-of-Death-Penalty.pdf

Is that only in the USA?

What is the difference say in Indonesia or Thailand?

Capital cases in Western countries involve a long and complex judicial process in an attempt to minimise the chance of murdering someone who is innocent.

Not sure what the difference in cost is for developing nations, but I get the feeling the appeals process is a pretty short one.

Footy Chick wrote:

Q. wrote:
The bigger point is that the majority of prisoners eventually leave prison. If you make prison barbaric, you dehumanise the prisoner and risk turning non-violent criminals into violent citizens when they re-enter society.

Just an interesting point re: this too

If you go right back to Australia's early years - our convict years - thousands of criminals were forced to do hard time and labor with no pay - and if you read documents from Pt Arthur, many of these convicts were pardoned and freed and most went onto live normal and sometimes very successful lives. (ok, so they didn't have telly then but..LOL)

Anyhoo, how much money would our Government save if we had convicts building the other half of the expressway. I'd rather see a convict do an honest days work than see a bloody governement worker lean on his shovel all day and get paid shitloads to do it. That and I bet a convict would feel a lot more satisfaction from that than sitting in a 4m x 2m cell for 18 hours a day

scoob wrote:

Q. wrote:

scoob wrote:

Q. wrote:Regarding cost to taxpayer, it's been demonstrated that the overall cost of being on death row exceeds the cost of that that same person being sentenced to life without parole. The substantial cost increase cannot even be justified as the deterrence aspect is completely speculative.

Here is a brilliant paper examining the situation in Colorado:

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/criminal-law-review/issues/v03-1/Cost-of-Death-Penalty.pdf

Is that only in the USA?

What is the difference say in Indonesia or Thailand?

Capital cases in Western countries involve a long and complex judicial process in an attempt to minimise the chance of murdering someone who is innocent.

Not sure what the difference in cost is for developing nations, but I get the feeling the appeals process is a pretty short one.

There is your answer - based the appeal system on the developing nations (ie minimal) - but only apply the death penalty to those who are 100% clearly guilty.

Q. wrote:

scoob wrote:So what you are saying is that there would be less murders and violent crime if they abolished the death penalty?

If jail is used as a deterrent then I can't see how you can say that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

If incarceration is a deterrent then why do people still commit crimes?

scoob wrote:

Q. wrote:

scoob wrote:So what you are saying is that there would be less murders and violent crime if they abolished the death penalty?

If jail is used as a deterrent then I can't see how you can say that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

If incarceration is a deterrent then why do people still commit crimes?

Because some people aer pretty damn dumb. If incarceration was abolished what do you think the crime rate would be, zero?

Punishment is what pretty much every judicial system in the world is based on, punishment is a deterrent - harsher the penalty bigger the deterrent. (that is why we have different sentences based on different crimes).

Q. wrote:You'd still require an expansive appeals process because you can't draw arbitrary lines in the sand.

Footy Chick wrote:

Q. wrote:You'd still require an expansive appeals process because you can't draw arbitrary lines in the sand.

DNA doesn't lie (unless you're a identical twin)

Footy Chick wrote:I realise I'm basing this off something that happened 200 years ago but hey...it worked

and it still works in some American states so I don't see why it couldn't work here.

and it wouldnt cost as much becuase security guards don't get paid as much as council workers

It just appears to me that you're happy for convicted fellons to sit on their arses all day in a small little room and only see daylight for an hour a day and that is punishment enough - this just doesn't sit right with me..

THis just makes them sound like half the people on centrelink.

scoob wrote:So we don't punish our criminals?

Rehab works best.

and the death penalty is no deterrent.

talking too much sense for me in here... adios

Q. wrote:

scoob wrote:So we don't punish our criminals?

Rehab works best.

and the death penalty is no deterrent.

talking too much sense for me in here... adios

It's been critically analysed for years. You'd do well to read a handful of law journals discussing the subject.

The evolution of the justice system is an interesting one and countries like America are getting left behind for worse.

scoob wrote:

Q. wrote:

scoob wrote:So we don't punish our criminals?

Rehab works best.

and the death penalty is no deterrent.

talking too much sense for me in here... adios

It's been critically analysed for years. You'd do well to read a handful of law journals discussing the subject.

The evolution of the justice system is an interesting one and countries like America are getting left behind for worse.

You'd do well to be a victim of a serious crime and have the same opinion.

Leaping Lindner wrote:It was a long time ago, but food for thought.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Alley_Murder

Footy Chick wrote:

Leaping Lindner wrote:It was a long time ago, but food for thought.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Alley_Murder

Thanks for that LL - I love stuff like this.

scoob wrote:
There is your answer - based the appeal system on the developing nations (ie minimal) - but only apply the death penalty to those who are 100% clearly guilty.

Footy Chick wrote:and I'll refer back to the fact that a high percentage of that is gang related.

There's no hope for those people, and if you weren't in a gang in the first place, for the best part you are by the time you get out.