Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3666)	3/20/2002 11:58:49 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

The cost/benefit issue is distorted by the enormous amount of effort put into the appeal process. It doesn't cost a whole lot for a jolt of electricity (though electricity rates are rising, I admit). The lengthy appeals process also negatively impacts the deterrent effect. Violent criminals tend not be long-term planners and thinkers. If the criminal vaguely knows that possible execution is 10 years down the road, and, what the hell, anything can happen in that eternity, deterrence loses its force. In the good old days (that you and I are so fond of), trial, conviction, and execution often occurred in a matter of months. That was not costly, and it had powerful deterrent effect. Shortening the appeal process might increase the chance of wrongful execution, but that could be looked upon in a cost/benefit way also. If anyone does get executed wrongfully along the way, the chances are slim to none that it will be a law-abiding citizen never in trouble with the law before. Almost certainly, it will be someone with a long history of criminal acts. I'm not saying that is right, and my heart goes out to them, but I will save the bulk of my sympathies for all those cops getting slaughtered year in and out.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3666)	3/20/2002 1:03:33 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

It seems that most people who oppose the death penalty focus on the execution of innocent people. I don't find that much of an issue. What finally convinced me was the cost-benefit Perhaps there is some confusion here? I also oppose the death penalty for murderers because of the costs involved. However, I oppose the death penalty for innocent people because of a respect for human life. If the person is innocent, I don't believe that the cost would sway my opinion, even if the execution was "almost free". Nor would I find myself motivated to value the lives of innocent people any less should the State miraculously find a method of dramatically reducing the costs of killing those who were not successful in mustering a sufficient defence to prove their innocence (rather through lack of resources or otherwise). I would not wish my position to be misunderstood...