Cheaper to Jail 'Em Than to Kill 'Em

Bottom line is that we don't rehabilitate killers; we warehouse them. I understand the desire to feel justice but there is no proof that the capital punishment penalty acts as a deterrent. Doesn't it seem as though it is more of a punishment to keep a criminal in a small cell with limited freedoms than to free him of his demons? Who cares about the money....

What price justice?

I agree with Jimmy on this. Death is not a deterrent to someone who lives by the sword.

And even if your are pro-death penalty, what good is such a penalty if it is almost never imposed? I don't get this.

I am for life imprisonment with limited freedoms. And yes, that includes NO interviews with media folk which almost certainly fans the fires of narcissim.

And, life should mean LIFE for certain particularly heinous crimes. Not time off for good behavior.

The woman from South Carolina who drowned her 2 kids in the car to impress her boyfriend is being punished far more by serving life her in prison. She has to think about her decision every day and how she killed her kids.

Cost of executing single convicted murderer in New Jersey: $84,500,000

Cost of a single abortion in New Jersey: $400

I think the lawyers are making WAY TOO much if 10 inmate appeals can run upwards of $845 million. Perhaps it is the Appeals process that needs reform.

While I'm not advocating Texas-style justice for NJ, they obviously have learned from experience how to process death-row inmates through the system far more efficiently.

While most studies tend to suggest that a death sentence is no deterrent ( and I have no reason to disagree since Texas' crime rate is higher than just about anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon), carrying out the actual sentence does provide final closure on an injustice - for both the victim's family and the offender's family. During my years in Texas, I saw many times how both families ended up consoling each other because of their mutual loss. Even after the many executions, the next one was always a sad event.

I'm not equating mutual grief with justice served but putting these offenders to death did seem to be the ultimate punishment and even fitting. Let's face it, there are very few inmates sitting on death-row for stealing a loaf of bread. My observation while in Texas was that nearly all of the offenders (white, hispanic and black) were career criminals with notorious, even horrid, crimes to their names. It's unfortunate that these individuals seemed almost destined for imprisonment or worse, but rehabilitation just isn't a feasible option for most of them. You can warehouse them in our state prisons for life but I seriously doubt that either the victim's family or the criminal feel any better served by our legal system in doing so.

I dont think the justice system exists to make a victim's family feel better. They're going to mourn no matter what. Look at the families of the people who died in Oklahoma City -- after Timothy McVeigh was executed, they said, "Well, that didn't really help." Of course it doesn't help.
And to whoever suggested the public defenders who defend death row inmates are paid too much I say HAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one.

Well, gc, somebody's making some money. $84,500,000 isn't exactly scratch!

As a former homicide prosecuter, I have always been concerned by death penalty cases. Witnesses in these cases tend to have their own agendas and juries are always sympathetic.

The real world is not like CSI and convictions are often based upon oral testimony and not "physical evidence."

Although my convictions were never reversed, my wife handled two different homicides in which she established before trial that the police arrested the wrong person. She is a capable lawyer and could have easily gotten a conviction if she ignored her concerns.

While it is true that there is a always an emotional desire to support the death penalty (ie - i will kill the m f who attacked my family, etc) Is that really best for society?

Is "good for society" the goal? It might be "good for society" to take your home and give it to a strip mall developer, but is it justice?

If someone accidentially kills someone through neglegence how is it "good for society" to punish the person?

Couldn't the very same point about the imperfection of witness testimoney be made for cases involving a life sentence?

Illinois Gov. George Ryan, three years ago: "I am not prepared to take the risk that we may execute an innocent person," he wrote in an overnight letter to the victims' families warning them of his plans.

With death row inmates he had recently pardoned sitting in the audience as he spoke Saturday, Ryan framed the death penalty issue as "one of the great civil rights struggles of our time."

"Our capital system is haunted by the demon of error - error in determining guilt, and error in determining who among the guilty deserves to die," Ryan said. "What effect was race having? What effect was poverty having?

"Because of all these reasons, today I am commuting the sentences of all death row inmates."

Ryan had halted all executions in the state nearly three years earlier after courts found that 13 Illinois death row inmates had been wrongly convicted since capital punishment resumed in 1977 - a period when 12 other inmates were executed.

He said studies conducted since that moratorium was issued had only raised more questions about the how the death penalty was imposed. He cited problems with trials, sentencing, the appeals process and the state's "spectacular failure" to reform the system.

"Because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious - and therefore immoral - I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death," he said.

Other governors have issued similar moratoriums and commutations, but nothing on the scale of what Ryan has done.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/30/national/main534639.shtml

Assistant Prosecutor Marilyn G. Zdobinski, an awesome lawyer who represented both Bergen and Passaic County well!

Kill Em. The reason it costs so much is because the non criminal non justice non system is designed to feed the liars for hire to argue with each other and distance the simple truth and nothing else. If someone kills someone, unless it's an accident they should be killed in the same fashion that they killed and the loved ones of the victims should be offered the option to do the deed. Who cares why? if they're crazy, if they've been abused,blah blah blah. If you kill someone you should die. Period.

When the evidence is clear and for at least some of the 10 it is and you would think that 84 million whould at least buy clarity then immediate death should be the only option.

There should be no life, no parole, no restitution, no rehabilitation, no mercy and a death that matches what they dealt to the victim.

Until the justice system can be fair and effective the death penalty is not justice but is murder. The governor of Virginia is doing a DNA test on a criminal already executed for a crime he maintained he didn't commit. It will be interesting to see if we executed an innocent man and wonder how many more have been executed.

It's not a matter of efficiency or accuracy. Putting people to death--even murderers--is not something a state should do. It's just morally wrong.

Yes. I am still losing sleep over Ted Bundy's Execution.(yawn)

And am saddened over the fact that I was unable to attend the marriage of Eric Mendez, who I am so sad to say has to spend unnecessary time away from his beloved, the wife he married while "spending life in jail" (I mean if you can't kill your parents who can?).(unbelievable)

And as for Scott Peterson, that poor railroaded handsome guy what a travesty of justice for him to be jailed, I mean after all it was only his first offense. What's the big deal anyway, I mean he only "may" have killed his wife and unborn child. You know how divorces are, such a sticky and ugly process.(pathetic)

And poor OJ, geez I wish I could at least play a round a golf with him but I know he so busy searching for the "real killers" of Ron and Nicole (so what his DNA was all over the crime scene).(mindboggling)

The system is flawed no doubt but instead of investing money into "studies"-

Perhaps invest the money into educating Law Enforement and providing them with adequate technology, tools and time to conduct exhaustive investigations (which in fact is NOT the case).

And pay the career Assistant Prosecutors who devote their lives to the public something they can live on and stop screwing around with them everytime there is a new political appointment as Prosecutor.

The public must learn that their outcry for demanding suspect(s) be named immediately though media and curiosity seekers puts emmense pressure on agencies to close out cases perhaps prematurely.

A name is released and the public feels great afterwards but then scrutinizes the investigation and prosecution afterwards forgetting that they of course cornered the politicos and police in the first place.

The interest, especially if there is no immediate danger to ourselves, then wanes, and then we lose empathy for the victim (meanwhile the next case comes along)and then it becomes self interest toward our pockets.

Are there innocent people in jail, yes probably, are there more out in the streets who are dangerous and guilty definitely- or sitting behind bars claiming their innocent.

Just because you work as a Prosecutor on your way out the door to some other more lucarative career or position in politics does not make you a Prosecuotor. Just as a Public Defender who works through his "residency" until he can get paid well to jump thru the Loops in the system does not make a fine lawyer defending the poor indigent's interest.

And morality Wallero, how do we demand that from a state when we can't even define it for ourselves?

It's pretty clear. Thou shalt not kill.

Why don't more conservatives toe this line, especially the religious conservatives?

There's IS "an eye for an eye" but there's also and "vengeance is mine." Lots of conflicting messages there.

That being said, I think death is too good for lot of these folks, such as the ones mentioned by Cstarling. I agree with Walleroo that civilized nations should not be using killing as a punishment for killing.

Life in prison suffices for me. But that means no contact with journalists, liberal Hollywood actors or novelists. And no parole.

I have no problem with the religious axiom-nor the state following it.

My problem is with the consequences of imprisionment and the problems with the policial system that calls itself Justice.

Does my wretching gut spasm when I see killers getting the "rights" that were not given to their victims. Yes. And for that I suggest reform. Life means life and that includes no right to anything but eating to sustain a life that should be spent reflecting on one's crime.

I have a problem with a society that suggests the axiom but refuses to embrace the nine other moral laws and to deplore them since they have a "religious" significance and find no room for them within the Halls of Justice.

Yes, Thou shall not kill, but how then do we weigh the exceptions? Or are there exceptions under that axiom that you say is so easy to abide with the reference "it's pretty clear" then -eh?