E-ciggs in Jail
- Thread starter jedwards
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. People like Richard Cooey need to be hung high. I'll never see it different. Your saying that prison is no paradise for these guys is true, but then you speak of sophisticated society. You're counting on other inmates dishing out justice on these types, and that is not the way it's supposed to be. Besides,they seperate these pukes for their own safety. I could care less if they do get pulverised, but that is not really that different in my eyes than the death penalty. When it comes down to it, it's all cruel and inhumane. As is life.JMO.
Hey, that's almost exactly the number of posts you have!! LOL
How many of those inmates are wealthy? Let me guess. Zero? 2? 6?
How many of them are black or minority? 80%, 90%
How many of them are white and convicted of killing someone black? I know that one, at least as of a year or two ago. Zero.
There is a like number of murderers NOT on death row. They all had money and/or the right skin color. Regardless, those people should be made to work. There is no reason that they can't "earn their keep" every bit as much as they could have on the outside. The vast majority of them are not so high of a security risk that they need to be isolated from the general population. If they weren't on death row, they'd be even less of a security risk. If they had something to lose, (like a few of those cushy amenities everyone gets so hot about), they'd be even less a security risk and could perform a lot of functions that would offset a good part of the cost of their confinement.
There ARE some people so violent and predatory that they can't be dealt with except by execution or under Supermax conditions. But those people are a tiny minority of convicted murderers. For every child killer, there are a hundred other convicted murderers that never made the media circus and would likely never kill again. Murderers have the lowest recidivism rate of all felons. Those statistics come from a day when we used to parole them routinely and the death penalty had been ruled unconstitutional.
The only truly economical way to deal with convicted killers is to short-circuit the justice system and execute them quickly. Doing that would guarantee a large number of innocent inmates being murdered BY ME AND YOU by proxy. I'm not willing to have the state murder innocent people in my name. Are you?
You're right. It is simplistic unless law enforcement and the criminal justice system were perfect. They aren't. Plus, at many times it is true that....who was it that famously said..... "the law is an ..."
They are stupid. The stupid will always be with us, in and out of jail. What are you gonna do? Kill them? If stupid was punishable by death, we could easily start the bloodshed outside of the jail walls. I have a few ideas of where we might start.
All statistics run counter to that claim. There is no class of offense with a 75% recidivism rate, let alone a combined rate that high. I haven't done the calculations, but I suspect that it's not even mathematically possible. It may seem that way to you, but I have serious doubts.
Good points. And another reason penal institutions should not be used as jobs programs for rural areas or profit centers for corporations or vote-getters for politicians. Jails as well as prisons should only have one purpose and that is to protect society from incorrigible miscreants. We jail too many people for too many stupid things. Then we wonder why they come out worse. Restitution, probation, community control, job training, counseling and rehabilitation all work better for most people sitting in jail at any given time. They're also cheaper in the long run. But criminal justice is political, and politics never thinks about the long term. Our stupid, sensationalized infotainment oriented media doesn't help either.
Yes it is true that it costs more to execute an inmate than to sentence him to life w/o parole. First off, the vast majority of people sentenced to life for murder don't serve 40+ years in maximum security. Secondly, not all life sentences are w/o parole and in those cases an inmate can be downgraded all the way to minimum for the last few years before parole eligibility. We had some second degree murderers in my minimum security facility. They knew to behave themselves or they could forget parole and go back to max or medium security. There are a lot of murderers in medium security prisons.
The appeals process is not ever-lasting and it's not that easy as many people think. The death penalty requires automatic appeals. Life without parole does not and it's difficult and expensive and you are not entitled to an appeal the way you are if you get a death penalty.
Relatively few appeals are heard for life sentences. All death sentences are appealed, often multiple times.
You might not know it, but some states deny appeals after a deadline even if there is NEW evidence that absolutely exonerates the defendant. I think Texas is one of them. Even if you can prove beyond doubt you are innocent, if you miss the deadline because you didn't have the proof in time.....ooops, tough luck for you.
Would you like to cut the crime rate in half overnight without building a single new prison?
It's easy. Give all burglars a life sentence and release all the murderers.
Of course that would never happen, but it is statistically valid.
And if you legalized drugs, with the possible exception of ...., you'd cut it in half again.
Problem is, all those guards would have to get jobs picking watermelons and politicians would have to find something else to run on.
It's easy. Give all burglars a life sentence and release all the murderers.
Of course that would never happen, but it is statistically valid.
And if you legalized drugs, with the possible exception of ...., you'd cut it in half again.
Problem is, all those guards would have to get jobs picking watermelons and politicians would have to find something else to run on.
Last edited:
I'd like to see some unbiased info on that. Doesn't seem possible that it is cheaper to have a life sentence. we are talking only those who CURRENTLY get the death penalty under the law. Those particular inmates, the only other option for those types is a life sentence w/out parole. I really think you are comparing two situations that are entirely dissimilar...Those who have option of parole, and those who have no possibility of going into the Outside w/out hurting/killing someone. Two different types of scumbags. Sorry, but most people who are getting life w/ parole. Would you actually want to know someone like that assuming they were guilty?
1. Huh? Not only is that a bad idea, the idea that murderers somehow don't commit rape, car jackings, burgluries etc... Makes no sense
2. Again, Huh?
3. Don't agree. There are only a couple drugs that should be outright legal IMHO. All the hard drugs are just as dangerous as ....(even alcohol).
4. With you on that, the almighty dollar rears it's head. Not to mention the pharma industry(self medication), alcohol and big tobacco industries. Big financial loss if herb were made legal.
You may be right about the lack of parole opportunities currently. The people I saw were possibly holdovers from before laws were changed. But still, check this article. Or, you can google for the same info. The only way to kill someone cheaper is to shortcut the appeals. I don't think anyone wants to do that. There are already too many innocent people convicted. That's a proven fact.
As for murderers getting paroled, they used to do it all the time an it didn't cause bloodbaths on the street. If it wasn't for the sleazy anti-Dukakis ad and a sensational media, they might still be doing it. I was told that I have a distant cousin (I never met him), that had been convicted of murder in MA during a taxi robbery. He spent a long time in prison. I don't know how long it was. But he was eventually paroled and, as of about 20 years ago when I heard about it, he was a successful mortgage broker with a wife and family and all. O.k., he was a mortgage broker, but still, at least he was no longer violent.
**************
An excerpt from that article:
To execute or not: A question of cost? - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com
I said unbiased. Honestly I don't consider the news media to be unbiased about anything. I more meant scholers and econimists w/ no invested interest in sensationalism.
1. Definitely agree that it's a bad idea. But repeat murderers are exceedingly rare. The only real ones are psychos, who cannot be deterred, or pros, who rarely get caught.
2. It is statistically valid, but impractical and wouldn't happen for various reasons. Most people convicted of murder have the lesser charges dropped (what's the point in charging a murderer with carjacking) so they don't necessarily show up in the statistics for recidivism.
3. Not true. Hundreds of thousands of people go to work and function for years upon years with a heroine habit. In some countries, successful programs of maintenance have been implemented. Drugs are inherently cheap and its obtaining them that causes 99% of the problems. An addict gets to the point where he doesn't even get high anymore, all the drug does is prevents him from feeling sick. ...., PCP and alcohol are exceptions. Nonetheless, few drugs make the addict cause as much harm as the illegality of them does. As bad as alcohol is, I don't remember the last time an alcoholic robbed me for a drink. The fact that they are dangerous is irrelevant. Dangerous to whom? The user? So what? Give them treatment or let them kill themselves. Don't waste money you could use for treatment on enforcement and imprisonment.
Dangerous to society? Eliminate the "The drug made me do it" defense. At one time or another during my youth, I did almost every drug there is once or twice, except heroine The only one that "made me" do anything I wouldn't ordinarily do was alcohol.
Now, if I had been addicted to any of them, I might have done something to obtain them. But that would have only been because of their legal status.
.... is unpredictable and dangerous in and of itself, IMO.
PCP is so bad that either you quickly realize it, or you become a jellybrain.
So, I make an exception for those. Those two, especially ...., are probably worth the enormous cost and effort of a prohibition.
4. Big financial loss if any illegal drug were made legal. Not to society at large, (it would save huge money), but to the many parasitic industries that depend on, and support, a perpetual drug war.
Also, a big financial loss to organized crime, the natural allies of the drug war industry parasites.
Once you declare war on something like this, be it terror or drugs, and enlist mercenaries to fight it, you virtually guarantee it's continued existence. It must continue to exist, even in a phantom form, because vast financial empires are built to leech off of whatever the war needs. These empires will not just go away because the war is won. They will ensure it is never won. Even if the enemy should surrender, they will not admit it. They need an enemy to sustain them. They will use every resource at their disposal to perpetuate the war they depend on.
Declaring a war on terror ensures continued terrorism, a useful tool to implement other agendas, chiefly private profit at public expense.
Declaring a war on drugs ensures continued drug abuse, a useful too for private profit at public expense.
Think about this. MJ will never be legalized in the U.S.. Never, ever. It's best shot was in the mid '70s.
Want to know why? Partially the oil, chemical, paper and textile industries that hemp would compete with. They are mostly concerned with hemp, but as long as MJ is illegal they will be safe from hemp.
No, it's the insurance and drug testing industries that lose the most were MJ to be legal.
The testing industry makes billions on the fact that MJ stays in your system so long. If they had to rely on finding the other drugs, most of which are gone in 24-48hrs., they'd be out of business.
I'd be willing to bet that over 90% of positive drug tests are for MJ.
The insurance industry saves billions by denying W.C. claims to injured workers based on a drug test that shows MJ in their systems, but proves nothing more than consumption within the last 30 days or so.
Those two behemoths will never allow full legalization. Never, ever, not in a zillion years.
Last edited:
The posting of this thread is a little ridiculous to me. While we're at it let's give murderers and rapists puppies and cake. Those poor murderers and rapists.
Your theory the repeat offenders are psycos is valid, but not rare at all. Most gang members are serial murders, they just don't profile them as such. Even if the haven't killed anyone them selves, they have participated in the murders like the members of the manson family and the PLO, the weathermen and several other violent groups.
Well, there is no single overarching and definitive study on the issue. There are tons of smaller studies, but they all could be called biased in one way or another because the pro-death penalty people have nothing to gain by studying the issue. If the public believes something that is wrong, why should they work against themselves to prove it. You can find a perceived bias in anything you don't agree with.
This is one of those issues like cigarettes causing cancer. Or global warming. Show me the proof!!!
No, there will never be a level of proof definitive enough to satisfy BT or the deniers.
This is an issue where you have to go with the consensus, not the crackpots or those who prefer to maintain the status-quo.
I could cite scholars, but there will be others to contradict them. Same with economists. Remember, scholars are from academia and tainted by liberal thinking anyway.
We are in the grips of the Fox culture where everyone's opinion is equally valid and perception is reality.
It is fair to balance truth with BS.
Procon.org is a website that presents arguments on both sides of many issues from reputable sources.
The side you favor tends to have arguments either based on old, outdated data from a time where appeals could be endless (1974), or snarky comments like "A rope is re-usable so the death penalty is cheap"
You will undoubtedly call it biased because, the side you don't like has more coherent arguments and newer data.
But what if, just what if, they really do have more coherent arguments?
What if the data really does support their positions?
See what I mean? You will believe what you want to believe unless God himself tells you otherwise. Anything else will be attributed to bias.
I think the site attempts to present both sides of the argument.
But because your side doesn't look as good, it is biased. Simple as that.
If you think the moon is green cheese, there would be a website to prove it and it would be the only unbiased info on the subject.
BTW, do you think that judge in the article was misquoted? Do you think he'd never studied the issue?
Is he a liberal, despite the fact he's not? I'll bet he was secretly anti-death penalty all along.
But he was referring to his own state when he said it costs more. Maybe in Texas, where they don't care if you're guilty or innocent as long as they can kill you quick, it's cheaper.
I'm sure the Federal system tends more toward the CA side of the equation.
Here's the site.
Does the death penalty cost less than life in prison without parole? - Death Penalty - ProCon.org
Here's a study done by Duke Univ. on the comparative costs. But, we all know how biased Universities are. AFAIK, Liberty or George Mason, or Hilldale hasn't done a similar study.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sour...Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina.pdf
Last edited:
Procon:
There is a biased assumption in that statement based on the fact that all of those costs are ALSO present w/ a life sentence trial.
All still exist in a life sentence trial.
Again, this assumes that there would be no costs involved in a life sentence trial. Fuzzy math, and very biased. I'd say that that info is useless w/out PROOF of case that cost the country/state MORE for a death penalty case, compared to the cost of housing an inmate for 30-60 years. All of the anti death penalty info ignores so much, and never offer case comparisons, because there aren't any. A life sentence trial is just as costly as a death penalty trial w/ one caveat: Often w/ life sentence trials, suspects will plead out for a shorter sentence. The only plea that will be accepted in a Death penalty trial would be a downgrade to a life sentence.
Sorry, you're wrong on several points.
If you look at the Duke study, you will see most of them in black and white.
These cases are very complex and it's impossible to make an exact comparison of what if's, because each is uni1que.
No one anywhere is assuming that there would be no costs involved in a life sentence trial. It's patently ridiculous to claim they are. I suggest the fuzziness lies not with the math, but elsewhere. Have a cup of coffee and read the Duke study if you think you're up to it.
The point is that the cost of DP cases is much higher. The Duke study makes that abundantly clear.
As it explains, capital cases, if they are tried as such, cannot be pleaded to a life sentence. That is unconstitutional.
You make another error in claiming that the same levels and numbers of appeals are present in both life and DP cases. That simply is not true. Post conviction costs are far lower in life cases.
Also, the Duke study plainly shows that most of those expenses for witnesses, investigators, attorneys, experts and consultants are higher for DP cases than for life cases. DP cases are tried much more vigorously by both sides. The study shows head-to-head comparison charts with real dollar figures.
They also include charts and tables showing the different phases a case goes through and their costs.
The costs are broken down right to the level of clerk salaries and the cost of using the courthouse.
Their methodology is thoroughly explained, as is their source for the figures they use and the assumptions they must make.
Capital cases are far more resource intensive than non-capital cases at every level. Everything is more thorough and costlier.
The costs differences also vary depending on whether the person is actually executed or not.
The most expensive cases are those where the D.P. is sought but not obtained and the person gets LWOP.
As for incarceration costs, for the first few years it is not very significant.
After 5-10 years, the cost is obviously more for the lifer (the other guy is dead), but it doesn't add up.
Evidently, as of the date of that study, NC still had the possibility of parole for murder cases and I don't know if they still do, but it looks like there are people doing life in medium security prisons nonetheless.
At any rate, the cost difference between medium and max security is marginal except for death row and the total never catches up to the huge sums spent trying and appealing a DP case in the first place.
Feel free to slog through the Duke study. I did. It seems pretty credible to me. No study is, or can be perfect. You cannot take one case and apply "what if" scenarios to it. But given all the added complexities introduced into a case where the D.P. is a possibility, it stands to reason that the trial and post conviction phases are far more expensive. Many of the problems with lifers filing endless appeals have been restricted by law out of the system. It doesn't happen any more, so that is not a factor.
Now, if you, like many on this board, would like to convict, sentence, and hang them all in the same day in the same venue, you'll save some money. But it'll still cost a lot for all those additional defense and prosecution resources. Neither side scrimps in a DP case.
If you look at the Duke study, you will see most of them in black and white.
These cases are very complex and it's impossible to make an exact comparison of what if's, because each is uni1que.
No one anywhere is assuming that there would be no costs involved in a life sentence trial. It's patently ridiculous to claim they are. I suggest the fuzziness lies not with the math, but elsewhere. Have a cup of coffee and read the Duke study if you think you're up to it.
The point is that the cost of DP cases is much higher. The Duke study makes that abundantly clear.
As it explains, capital cases, if they are tried as such, cannot be pleaded to a life sentence. That is unconstitutional.
You make another error in claiming that the same levels and numbers of appeals are present in both life and DP cases. That simply is not true. Post conviction costs are far lower in life cases.
Also, the Duke study plainly shows that most of those expenses for witnesses, investigators, attorneys, experts and consultants are higher for DP cases than for life cases. DP cases are tried much more vigorously by both sides. The study shows head-to-head comparison charts with real dollar figures.
They also include charts and tables showing the different phases a case goes through and their costs.
The costs are broken down right to the level of clerk salaries and the cost of using the courthouse.
Their methodology is thoroughly explained, as is their source for the figures they use and the assumptions they must make.
Capital cases are far more resource intensive than non-capital cases at every level. Everything is more thorough and costlier.
The costs differences also vary depending on whether the person is actually executed or not.
The most expensive cases are those where the D.P. is sought but not obtained and the person gets LWOP.
As for incarceration costs, for the first few years it is not very significant.
After 5-10 years, the cost is obviously more for the lifer (the other guy is dead), but it doesn't add up.
Evidently, as of the date of that study, NC still had the possibility of parole for murder cases and I don't know if they still do, but it looks like there are people doing life in medium security prisons nonetheless.
At any rate, the cost difference between medium and max security is marginal except for death row and the total never catches up to the huge sums spent trying and appealing a DP case in the first place.
Feel free to slog through the Duke study. I did. It seems pretty credible to me. No study is, or can be perfect. You cannot take one case and apply "what if" scenarios to it. But given all the added complexities introduced into a case where the D.P. is a possibility, it stands to reason that the trial and post conviction phases are far more expensive. Many of the problems with lifers filing endless appeals have been restricted by law out of the system. It doesn't happen any more, so that is not a factor.
Now, if you, like many on this board, would like to convict, sentence, and hang them all in the same day in the same venue, you'll save some money. But it'll still cost a lot for all those additional defense and prosecution resources. Neither side scrimps in a DP case.
I can just as easily find papers that show the opposite: Death Penalty Paper
Obviously that site is just as biased in the opposite direction, wasn't stating otherwise. However, they are all(pro and against) saying that the cost of a death row inmate per year is $90k. Life sentence in max security(you are incorect. All in for life/no parol are in max security) is $50k. At this point, it looks like from what I have read from several sources, some for some against, is that there is a lot of number swapping. One thing left out one way or another. But when you combine the court cost and the increased imprisonment cost, at 1 half to one third the time in jail the cost is almost even steven. You can reply whatever you like. I'm not going to get in a pissing match over e few extra dollars one way or another. It is a moot semantical arguement at this point.
Obviously that site is just as biased in the opposite direction, wasn't stating otherwise. However, they are all(pro and against) saying that the cost of a death row inmate per year is $90k. Life sentence in max security(you are incorect. All in for life/no parol are in max security) is $50k. At this point, it looks like from what I have read from several sources, some for some against, is that there is a lot of number swapping. One thing left out one way or another. But when you combine the court cost and the increased imprisonment cost, at 1 half to one third the time in jail the cost is almost even steven. You can reply whatever you like. I'm not going to get in a pissing match over e few extra dollars one way or another. It is a moot semantical arguement at this point.
Hmmm... a site that is named PROdeathpenalty? No bias there.
Whether or not lifers can be housed in medium security is something the state decides. Again, the cost difference is minimal but, either way, it's way cheaper than death row.
The big cost difference is in the trial, sentencing, and post sentencing phases. It takes a long period of incarceration before the costs begin to even out. Plus, that all assumes that the lifer does NO productive work while confined. There is no reason that must be the case. If he just sits around all day, it's because the authorities decided that's what he'll do.
The Duke study is not easy reading, but it is not biased and is fairly conclusive original research.
All the other sites are interpretations of the research of others.
The cost difference ranges from marginal to a lot, depending on a lot of things.
But even if it's "even steven", (and I still maintain it's not) it's still stupid and risks killing innocent people.
How much in savings is that worth?
What if it were someone you knew or loved that was murdered by the state just to save some insignificant amount of money?
You: "You executed my uncle for a crime he didn't commit. Here's the proof"
The State: "Yeah? Well, too late. Sorry. But look on the bright side. We saved $3,421 of taxpayer money"
You: "Oh. O.K. Nevermind".
Whether or not lifers can be housed in medium security is something the state decides. Again, the cost difference is minimal but, either way, it's way cheaper than death row.
The big cost difference is in the trial, sentencing, and post sentencing phases. It takes a long period of incarceration before the costs begin to even out. Plus, that all assumes that the lifer does NO productive work while confined. There is no reason that must be the case. If he just sits around all day, it's because the authorities decided that's what he'll do.
The Duke study is not easy reading, but it is not biased and is fairly conclusive original research.
All the other sites are interpretations of the research of others.
The cost difference ranges from marginal to a lot, depending on a lot of things.
But even if it's "even steven", (and I still maintain it's not) it's still stupid and risks killing innocent people.
How much in savings is that worth?
What if it were someone you knew or loved that was murdered by the state just to save some insignificant amount of money?
You: "You executed my uncle for a crime he didn't commit. Here's the proof"
The State: "Yeah? Well, too late. Sorry. But look on the bright side. We saved $3,421 of taxpayer money"
You: "Oh. O.K. Nevermind".
Apearantly you didn't understand me. Even w/ court costs it evens out in the end. Jail is a terrible faite for horrible people(ONLY if they deserve it. We agree that many do not), and the death penalty is there for worthless sociopaths who have no use in society, or even jail. What is the point to keeping these horrible people who have no empathy towards men woman and children alive. Why...what can be gained. Nothing. Morality has nothing to do with it. Assuming these scum are actually guilty, they serve no purpose AT all. They are just a waste of resources and fresh air. Eff um. Let it go, these scum most of them would kill you and everyone you love to get free. They aren't even worth worrying about.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
