Serious Question About Death Penalty Costs

[Jib 0]

A better question: why is it that we spend more than minimum wage to keep people in cages?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I asked the question in another post because I wonder if the death penalty deters criminals from trials they probably won't win. Otherwise, the state's paying, what do you have to lose?

Uh, I don't understand your position here. Are you saying the cost of trials will deter potential criminals, or..... if they have crappy counsel they will not commit crime for fear of a slamdunk loss at trial, or .....

[Jib 0]

Quote

Quote

I asked the question in another post because I wonder if the death penalty deters criminals from trials they probably won't win. Otherwise, the state's paying, what do you have to lose?

Uh, I don't understand your position here. Are you saying the cost of trials will deter potential criminals, or..... if they have crappy counsel they will not commit crime for fear of a slamdunk loss at trial, or .....

If you're going to go to prison for a very long time, why not roll the dice? By that I am comparing someone looking at life in prison in a state without the death penalty to a state with the death penalty.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[kallend 1,677]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I asked the question in another post because I wonder if the death penalty deters criminals from trials they probably won't win. Otherwise, the state's paying, what do you have to lose?

Uh, I don't understand your position here. Are you saying the cost of trials will deter potential criminals, or..... if they have crappy counsel they will not commit crime for fear of a slamdunk loss at trial, or .....

If you're going to go to prison for a very long time, why not roll the dice? By that I am comparing someone looking at life in prison in a state without the death penalty to a state with the death penalty.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. However, comparing DP to nonDP states shows that DP states have much higher murder rates (like more than 50% higher).

Interestingly, states with higher rates of NRA membership also have higher murder rates. Curious, eh?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Trent 0]

If you have a problem answering my questions, just say so. I'm asking them because I want to know... for you to presume otherwise is asinine. You don't know me, so don't talk like you do.

If you can't respond without crying that I have an agenda, then maybe your answers aren't good enough. If you don't know the answers, don't answer.

And no, your DZ answer isn't the same thing . A DZ would be a PROFIT center, a court system is a COST center no matter how you slice it. I'm pretty sure they'll either have exactly as much staff as they need, or not enough. Staff will always be added due to the growing caseload, but what of that is directly resulting from DP cases? So I've already acknowledged that I can see how having to hire more staff to keep under the time requirements for trials makes sense... and I see that DP cases require a lot of trial time. But I'm not sure how it adds up to numbers like Kallend posted of 2.6M... so I asked. You're the only one trying to be confrontational about it now.

Oh, hello again!

[Jib 0]

Quote

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. However, comparing DP to nonDP states shows that DP states have much higher murder rates (like more than 50% higher).

No, I question whether cases are more likely to be tried where the death penalty is not a deterrent to proceeding to trial. There seems to be no downside.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[kallend 1,677]

Quote

If you have a problem answering my questions, just say so. I'm asking them because I want to know... for you to presume otherwise is asinine. You don't know me, so don't talk like you do.

If you can't respond without crying that I have an agenda, then maybe your answers aren't good enough. If you don't know the answers, don't answer.

And no, your DZ answer isn't the same thing . A DZ would be a PROFIT center, a court system is a COST center no matter how you slice it. I'm pretty sure they'll either have exactly as much staff as they need, or not enough. Staff will always be added due to the growing caseload, but what of that is directly resulting from DP cases? So I've already acknowledged that I can see how having to hire more staff to keep under the time requirements for trials makes sense... and I see that DP cases require a lot of trial time. But I'm not sure how it adds up to numbers like Kallend posted of 2.6M... so I asked. You're the only one trying to be confrontational about it now.

If you want some really official data, go the the Illinois Commission here:

www.idoc.state.il.us/ccp/ccp/reports/index.html

In Illinois it cost even more than $2.6M per execution.

They reckon over $800M extra spent on capital punishment (maybe as much as $1.1B).

Can fix a lot of roads, schools and bridges with $1B
(or a lot of Humvee armor).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ad151 0]

Quote

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. However, comparing DP to nonDP states shows that DP states have much higher murder rates (like more than 50% higher).

Interestingly, states with higher rates of NRA membership also have higher murder rates. Curious, eh?

My sarcastic guess is that they would rather be put down than spend life in prison - lol

I'd be interested to look at other variables in those states and know what (if any) the other differences are. My guess at the NRA thing is that its a cause and effect relationship. I have a carry pistol license and have had tons of cops tell me they would rather look up a citizen and find them a licensed weapons holder any day of the week than not regesitered cuz they know they are honest.

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sorry if I just happened to have done a few papers on this topic before.

Ah, the old booksmarts vs streetsmarts. I know which I would (and do) have.

You can do all the college papers you want in your establishment of "higher" education. In the end you can't re-write math.

Your way doesn't add up nor make sense. Nice try. Have anything else?

I've posted tons of stuff that the DP proponents avoid. Tell me when you are willing to answer them.

Hi ESB

Affirmative or is it negative

Anyway the folks your wAiting for a response from, based on previous threads will be to busy to respond to your questions.

As you wereDon't confuse the issue with the facts Time to move on.

Personnel attacks are forbidden so get used to some folks SOP.

R.I.P.

[PhreeZone 15]

>But I'm not sure how it adds up to numbers like Kallend posted of 2.6M... so I asked.

Well, part of it comes in the break down of who gets involved in the case. Once its a DP case the local appeal automatically goes to the local circuit appeals, then to the state appeals. There has to be a full trial at each one. You have to pay lawyers and defence at each level and you better believe that those working in the state level are making a hell of a lot more then what those at the county level are making. You need to pay for the expert testamony at all 3 levels, you need to pay for testing at each level and generally as you go higher up the defense lawyers start pulling out more and more fancy tricks in tests or testamony that costs more money. A simple fingerprint test and expert might only cost $150 for a full trial at the local level, but by the time that its to the state appeals level they are now demanding advanced DNA testing that between the test and the expert costs $5000. Remember that the state is paying for both sides of the trial here so its not the DA thats causing the bill to increase, the public defender is causing the bill to rocket skyward too.

In terms of Public defenders on DP cases... do you really want the lowest bidder on a government contract handleing your life when its on trial? In almost every DP case here in Ohio the defendent is represented by a seperate defender at each step of the process so there is back billing of time when the state PD has to call the previous lawyers to discuss things about the case. Same on the DA side.

To answer your question Trent, honestly a lot of the figures being thrown around are compiled as the cost of trials for each DP case. They take the judges salery and divide it over the number of days the trial went, same with the PD's and DA's. They figure in all the testing and the experts, usually they figure in the saleries of everyone that was involved in the case and divide it over the length of the trial. Granted at the state level there are a whole group of people that are only employed to work death penality cases so they all get figured in too. Add in the cost of execution (50k as state above for example) and the numbers quickly rise. Its usually assumed that in a life sentence case that case hits the appeals court and stops unless new evidence comes up.

Its a lot of soft numbers thats hard to say it cost $1,875,241 exactly for him to be put to death... but by figuring in all the costs vs known costs of what it takes to house an inmate... the money being spent has be be associated with something.

As for why does it cost more to house inmates then minimum wage is? Can you find guards that will work for less? Cooks that cook for less? Administration that works for less? Maintence fees on buildings that are cheaper? Training for the guards that are cheaper? Cheaper prisions?

Everything costs money and with guards making 40k+, administrators making 100k+ it adds into the prisioner cost. In one of the books I read years ago said it cost about 20k per year to house a max security inmate... but over 10k of that was associated with personal associated with the prision. Be it a guard, an adminstrator, a cook or anyone else's salery. The remaining $10k was going towards food, maintence, medical care and everything else associated with the inmate.

You want to make the stay of an inmate cheaper? Hire people at a lower salery to guard them.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Trent 0]

While there have been some decent answers so far. That was the clearest and most to the point yet. So I'm gathering that, basically, the costs that are stated when giving death penalty case costs are more a combination of "opportunity costs" (for taking time from the DAs and Judges) and actual costs of hiring defense counsel, paying for lab work, and expert testimony. I wonder, if defense bills are so high, would it be more economical to have a public defender's office, opposite the DA? Is that even allowed?

Anyway, good answer. I see that the math may be oversimplified in most cases... but I also see how the number is much higher than a "normal" trial would be.

[Aside] One interesting thing I read in the link from Kallend... the Illinois Capital Punishment Comission found that because the death penalty put additional scrutiny on a case... it was more likely that the accused would be found innocent in appeal. So, in a twisted way, the DP has saved a few lives from wrongful convictions or death. Strange side effect, but it makes sense.

Oh, hello again!

[PhreeZone 15]

>I wonder, if defense bills are so high, would it be more economical to have a public defender's office, opposite the DA? Is that even allowed?

But its not just defense bills that are high. The DA office has bills too. Trust me, just lose a case and be assed "Court costs" and you'll see what they are really quick. For a 35 minute speeding trial here one of my friends was assed court costs of $142 plus a $75 fine. Thats a billing rate of $245 per hour.


The whole legal system is a huge hole that money goes into...

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I asked the question in another post because I wonder if the death penalty deters criminals from trials they probably won't win. Otherwise, the state's paying, what do you have to lose?

Uh, I don't understand your position here. Are you saying the cost of trials will deter potential criminals, or..... if they have crappy counsel they will not commit crime for fear of a slamdunk loss at trial, or .....

If you're going to go to prison for a very long time, why not roll the dice? By that I am comparing someone looking at life in prison in a state without the death penalty to a state with the death penalty.

Sure, I agree. I would rather be dead than spend even 5 years in the can at my age. But that is me.

That still does not address the issue tho.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

If you have a problem answering my questions, just say so. I'm asking them because I want to know... for you to presume otherwise is asinine. You don't know me, so don't talk like you do.

If you can't respond without crying that I have an agenda, then maybe your answers aren't good enough. If you don't know the answers, don't answer.

And no, your DZ answer isn't the same thing . A DZ would be a PROFIT center, a court system is a COST center no matter how you slice it. I'm pretty sure they'll either have exactly as much staff as they need, or not enough. Staff will always be added due to the growing caseload, but what of that is directly resulting from DP cases? So I've already acknowledged that I can see how having to hire more staff to keep under the time requirements for trials makes sense... and I see that DP cases require a lot of trial time. But I'm not sure how it adds up to numbers like Kallend posted of 2.6M... so I asked. You're the only one trying to be confrontational about it now.

I don't need to know you to understand your slant; do you think anyone here is unsure as to your slant? As for you calling me assinine, now you're getting pissed that I make a statement on it. Oh well.

I do know the answers to your questions, as many people do. I don't have them down to the dollar, but that isn't neccessary.

DZ profit, court cost... w/e. From a bugetary standpoint to comparison is there and legitimate. I don't care, toss it if you're going to get hung up on it to distract the attention.

Your question/dillema was essentially that: how does it cost more to execute a person rather than to incarcerate them for life? the costs go like this in these general areas:

1. Trial costs.
2. Prison costs increased via supermax security
3. Appellate costs

Ok, what you are contesting is that is costs more for more court personel when there are more cases, and mor are of the capital variety. The US Constitution guarantees we have speedy trials, so we cannot just backlog them for 4 or 5 years, hence more defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, courts, etc are required; is that straightforward enough for you to understand?

Prison costs are more because death row inmates are house by themselves and in higher securoty prisons.

Appellate costs are obvious.

Get it? Where do you want to shave costs? You want to make more errors?

I'm not being confrontational about it, but when we continually throw basic concepts at you and you continue to pick away and build strawmen, then it get's a little old.

MORE PEOPLE ON TRIAL FOR DP CASES = MORE COSTS; there is a direct proportion. What might be a little frustrating is that you continue to ask the same questions over and over again, in a different way. And no, we don't have exact figures. The only way to cut the costs would be to reduce Constitutional protections.

Part of what you're saying is that there has to be a certian amount of staff at the court even if there were hypotheticaly no cases at all, but that isn't the case and CP cases are choking the system.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

I asked the question in another post because I wonder if the death penalty deters criminals...

I know I've clipped your comment, but I felt compelled to answer the question that came up repeatedly on the subject of capital punishment and if it deters criminals from heinous acts.

Have you ever heard of Simon Wiesenthal?

He was a Nazi hunter who worked from a tiny one-man office in Vienna. He devoted himself from 1945 on exclusively to the task of finding and bringing to justice those guilty, who had survived the war and escaped into the world.

He was asked why he did this (read his story of what happened to him and his family during the war).

Wiesenthal said that his conscience forced him to bring the guilty ones to trial. And if they were convicted, then what? Punish them, of course. But why?

To rehabilitate them? That very idea is absurd. To incapacitate them? But, by then, they didn't represent any present danger. To deter others from doing what they did? That is a hope too extravagant to be indulged.

The answer, to me and, I suspect, everyone else who agrees that they should be punished, is clear. "To pay them back". And to be executed was the only way they could be paid back...

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. However, comparing DP to nonDP states shows that DP states have much higher murder rates (like more than 50% higher).

Interestingly, states with higher rates of NRA membership also have higher murder rates. Curious, eh?

I'd be interested to look at other variables in those states and know what (if any) the other differences are. My guess at the NRA thing is that its a cause and effect relationship. I have a carry pistol license and have had tons of cops tell me they would rather look up a citizen and find them a licensed weapons holder any day of the week than not regesitered cuz they know they are honest.

My sarcastic guess is that they would rather be put down than spend life in prison - lol

Perhaps, but you can't make that call for them.

. I have a carry pistol license and have had tons of cops tell me they would rather look up a citizen and find them a licensed weapons holder any day of the week than not regesitered cuz they know they are honest.

Well, hmmmm. OK. I'm pro-gun like anyone, own several, but I don't get that logic from the cops. Many people simply don't own guns; are they dishonest?

[ad151 0]

Quote

Where do you want to shave costs?

let's start with the cable tv hahaha;) jk

[ad151 0]

Quote

The answer, to me and, I suspect, everyone else who agrees that they should be punished, is clear. "To pay them back". And to be executed was the only way they could be paid back...

ltdiver

and where were you earlier when I was getting my arse handed to me saying this in a different thread and needing some back up?!

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

I asked the question in another post because I wonder if the death penalty deters criminals...

I know I've clipped your comment, but I felt compelled to answer the question that came up repeatedly on the subject of capital punishment and if it deters criminals from heinous acts.

Have you ever heard of Simon Wiesenthal?

He was a Nazi hunter who worked from a tiny one-man office in Vienna. He devoted himself from 1945 on exclusively to the task of finding and bringing to justice those guilty, who had survived the war and escaped into the world.

He was asked why he did this (read his story of what happened to him and his family during the war).

Wiesenthal said that his conscience forced him to bring the guilty ones to trial. And if they were convicted, then what? Punish them, of course. But why?

To rehabilitate them? That very idea is absurd. To incapacitate them? But, by then, they didn't represent any present danger. To deter others from doing what they did? That is a hope too extravagant to be indulged.

The answer, to me and, I suspect, everyone else who agrees that they should be punished, is clear. "To pay them back". And to be executed was the only way they could be paid back...

ltdiver

Fortunately there have never been any other tyranical, maniacal, leaders of coutries since then, so it must have deterred them.... oh wait, yes there has - deterrence is an excuse for revenge.

[ad151 0]

Quote

Well, hmmmm. OK. I'm pro-gun like anyone, own several, but I don't get that logic from the cops. Many people simply don't own guns; are they dishonest?

not at all. however, many many people carry/obtain them illegally. think of it as roulette - you got black vs. red & even vs. odd (for the most part, not entirely). say you put your money on black which is the people without guns at all, or at least those who are honest and registered and the safe bet. you'd rather find a black than a red, who are the illegally obtained weapon holders even tho some of the black does indeed have a weapon. probably a shitty example but as a cop you'd take a known, likely non risk over a completely unknown.

[Trent 0]

Quote

I don't need to know you to understand your slant; do you think anyone here is unsure as to your slant? As for you calling me assinine, now you're getting pissed that I make a statement on it. Oh well.

Your arguments to my person are a joke. Get over yourself. I haven't spent a whole lot of time pondering the death penalty so before I decide anything I want to know some things. Is that to complex for you to understand? But hey, if you want to attack people asking questions, go ahead... it just makes a statement about yourself.

Quote

Your question/dillema was essentially that: how does it cost more to execute a person rather than to incarcerate them for life?

And you have failed to understand the question from the start. I won't restate it again since you should be able to go to post one and figure it out.

Quote

Ok, what you are contesting is that is costs more for more court personel when there are more cases, and mor are of the capital variety. The US Constitution guarantees we have speedy trials, so we cannot just backlog them for 4 or 5 years, hence more defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, courts, etc are required; is that straightforward enough for you to understand?

Asking questions is contesting? If you had a point to make, right or wrong, you've lost it because you're acting like I posed the question to debate you. As much as your psychic powers have told you that may be true, you're wrong. My question has been better answered by people (including sometimes arch-nemesis Kallend) who have responded in a mature and informational manner.

Quote

Get it? Where do you want to shave costs? You want to make more errors?

I never said I was looking to shave costs anywhere, just figure out how expenses were being calculated.

Quote

I'm not being confrontational about it, but when we continually throw basic concepts at you and you continue to pick away and build strawmen, then it get's a little old.

Since you're answering (with some venom) questions I never asked and attempting to put words in my mouth, I'd say that there's definitely someone here who is more likely building strawmen than me.

Quote

What might be a little frustrating is that you continue to ask the same questions over and over again, in a different way. And no, we don't have exact figures.

Then why do we see them often quoted? 800 million. 2.6 million. 1.1 billion.

Quote

Part of what you're saying is that there has to be a certian amount of staff at the court even if there were hypotheticaly no cases at all, but that isn't the case and CP cases are choking the system.

And if the maximum punishment was life in prison, would you be more okay with innocent people being sentenced? I bet there would be plenty of appeals if life without parole was the absolute max. To many (even here), life in prison would be worse than death... should we accept a lesser court process because we're not killing someone?

Have a nice day.

Oh, hello again!

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

A better question: why is it that we spend more than minimum wage to keep people in cages?

Detention Officers are hard enough to retain, that's why. The question I have is why does the system allow layers to screw up this country so much?

I have the answer:

1. Rich/affluent people make the laws
2. The same are benefited by shyster lawyers
3. Conclusion is obvious

[Jib 0]

Quote

Quote

A better question: why is it that we spend more than minimum wage to keep people in cages?

Detention Officers are hard enough to retain, that's why. The question I have is why does the system allow layers to screw up this country so much?

I have the answer:

1. Rich/affluent people make the laws
2. The same are benefited by shyster lawyers
3. Conclusion is obvious

Wrong answer. The question was not why it costs as much as it does but, thinking like a liberal for a second, why we spend what we do as opposed to spending it on preventative programs.

The laws are made by a variety of people on two sides of the political spectrum. I doubt affirmative action and other social programs were designed to benefit the affluent or lawyers. What about Bush's tax proposal? Does that benefit lawyers.

BTW you really need to read the forum rules about personal attacks.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[EBSB52 0]

Your original question:

How do you figure our what it costs for the state to have a trial?

Then your subsequent questions:

I mean, the DA's are paid salary, right? They'd be getting paid no matter what the trial. The judge is on salary, he'd be getting paid too. The defense is either paid by the accused or provided by the state. Is this usually pro-bono or does the state pay million dollar lawyers to defend people? So all I can see that's left is expert witnesses that are compensated for their time and expertise.

A bias toward the notion that DP doesn't have increase costs. This is apparent when you write things like, "...he'd be getting paid too." And, "So all I can see that's left ..." These are statements that make a person believe that you lean toward the notion that DP cases cost no more, but are willing to listen if someone can convince you otherwise. If you would ask about the costs and then debate both sides it would appear objective, but you are being critcal of any information that supports the cost for capital cases.

Does all that really add up to a few million?

That has skepticism written all over it.

So it's not the death penalty cases per se that are costing so much, but the sheer volume of all cases?

Right, you're not arguing that DP cases cost more.

Because the way I imagine it, is that all those salaried DA's and staff would probably be working on some case somewhere if the death case/appeal was not going on. So then all these cost estimates are based on someone's version of opportunity cost?

Right, they would be working anyway, so.... Someone has a version. Right, keep telling yourself you are simply inquiring. If you would ask 1 question, rhetorical or otherwise, where you critique someone denying the costs of the DP, then you would sound so much more convincing in regard to your so-called naivety.

I really don't want to be contentious here, I just want to know how someone arrives at the conclusion that a death penalty case costs taxpayers X million more than if it were a life-sentence case.

Right, it wasn't worded, "I really don't want to be contentious here, I just want to know how someone arrives at the conclusion that a life sentence case costs taxpayers X million less than if it were a death penalty case." See, you give yourself away, time after time.

To me, it really looks like "soft" numbers, which are more than apt to be inflated from one side or another to prove someone's point.

Right, you have at least a soft opinion that the costs are the same.

But I definitely want to hear more about it.

But are willing to be convinced if someone will do 1,000 hours research, will you would probably dismiss anyway.

So the DA's have more work to do, but they're on salary so they'd be getting paid no matter what.

Dude, that's an argument against the notion that DP cases cost more.

If it is mainly police, they're also on salary and getting paid regardless of the investigation.

Ya, and hiring more cops isn't worthy of figuring in? Have you heard of overtime pay for cops? Some cops earn their salary again in overtime pay. Maybe you haven't heard of your hero's (GW Bush) overtime law (took effect last August - I can start a new thread on it if you wish) that revokes overtime for many people, but language is inserted that specifically protects, "first responders" which are cops and firefighters. RN's are highly attacked in the law.

It would seem that that kind of thing would happen regardless if it were a death case or not, the gap would just be filled by multiple additional cases.

People have supported the notion that DP cases require much more investigation; so to sweep under the carpet the additional costs is to ask for a, "gimmee" in a golf game.

I fully understand man hours. I was a consultant in my past life. The same thing applied there too however. I was paid a salary, regardless of how I long I worked on any one project. My employer, because a project went over estimated time, did not incur any more REAL costs except that I was not available for another project.

Another fine argument that CP doesn’t cost more. Oh wait, you aren't arguing that, I forgot. You can work DA's only so long and they have to get a cot. Furthermore, you tend to chase people out of the DA's office and into private practice if you overload them, so there are parameters. Also, if you screw up on time statuettes, you can lose a case, so this point is a ridiculous comparison. Many people involved in the process are not salaried exempt.

And as far as increasing the goals for more death penalty cases (not that I think that's a great idea), wouldn't that simply lengthen the time it took to get people to trial up until a point where the HAD to hire more DAs?

An argument that there is an alternative to fair and speedy trials. I pointed out that defendants have a right to a speedy trial, but you are still looking for any reason possible that CP cases don't cost more.

Your example of a DZ doesn't work here since the objective of the court process isn't to make money. Instead, lacking the appropriate staff (which I'm sure is almost always the case with DAs offices) lengthens the wait for trials to see a courtroom.

Again, debunked by speedy trial guarantees.

Contrary to what you might think, I'm not trying to argue that it's cheaper to kill them...

Then show me all of your arguments in this thread that argue it might be more expensive to sentence them to life.

But even then, it is impossible to get exact numbers of exactly how that increases costs to taxpayers.

Right, you want exact to the penny figures or it's all bullshit. Show me where it was proven that there was/is a disparity of blacks being executed for crimes where white people would be let go or charged with a lesser crime. A great example of that derives from the charges of crack versus powder cocaine. We know which demographic uses which, and the courts have been criticized for disproportionately charging one group over another, but are there volumes of testimony and recorded admissions? Did Ollie North really not recall all X,000 questions? Did Clinton really have sex with Monica, or were the seamen implanted? You can divide hairs until we run out of bandwidth, but the notion that the DP costs at least twice as much as life imprisonment is something that even the most conservative death-lover will concede.

I wonder, if defense bills are so high, would it be more economical to have a public defender's office, opposite the DA? Is that even allowed?

Now you're looking for ways to make DP more economical, hence rendering a potential solution to what you well know is a fact; DP costs considerably more. You're tipping your hand.

the Illinois Capital Punishment Comission found that because the death penalty put additional scrutiny on a case... it was more likely that the accused would be found innocent in appeal. So, in a twisted way, the DP has saved a few lives from wrongful convictions or death. Strange side effect, but it makes sense.

Now you're trying to make the DP a martyr. That is the most far out paradox I've ever read. So now the added prosecutorial expense, according to you, is really an expense of the defense in sheepskin. EEEEWWW brother.

Then why do we see them often quoted? 800 million. 2.6 million. 1.1 billion.

This in response to me asking why you want exact figures. Those are rough numbers. 2.6 million being the smallest number means, $2,6000,000. It could be, $2,547,864.34 and still be rounded up to 2.6. If we get to 1.1 billion we could be at, $1,136,386,073.64, but who's counting? With that figure we are 36 million dollars higher than the 1.1 bill, and it could be 36 mill lower than the 1.1 billion. These aren't exact figures and I wouldn't expect them to be that point.

And if the maximum punishment was life in prison, would you be more okay with innocent people being sentenced? I bet there would be plenty of appeals if life without parole was the absolute max.

This is a good argument, an argument that CP isn't that bad, but still an argument that I want to address. To be objective this must be entered into the equation. The route of appeals isn't as extensive with life cases and doesn't get the same attention as a DP case, so I argue that the appeals would be inherently cheaper. But it would take real rough numbers to get a handle on the actual costs associated with a system that would hypothetically now sentence to life and not death. It would depend upon how the appellate system viewed life sentences and it would likely change by venue and time.

Now, I will be objective. There were 2 times in this thread where it could be argued that you started to concede to the notion that CP costs more than life. These weren't strong arguments/concessions, but I need to cite them.

Anyway, good answer. I see that the math may be oversimplified in most cases... but I also see how the number is much higher than a "normal" trial would be.

With a disclaimer, but you, kicking and screaming, started to concede.

Now this might lead to fewer available resources for other work, that makes sense.

You actually see what has been repeated several times. Of course you don't say the obvious; extra people would then be needed and hired, hence more expense.

Can you please review all of your posts in this thread and find other statements than the 2 above that imply you argue the other way or even straddle the middle? After all, being objective is a process of discovery and tests of that discovered data.

You arguments are like those of, "mnealtx" where he argued to the end that the notion of killing a child must be done when that child still is a child, not 12 years later when the appeals are exhausted. He finally conceded that it's the same thing after pages of discussion. Certain things are so supported, so obvious that they are considered moot. In court you would ask the judge to consider them under, "Judicial Notice" meaning you ask the judge to acknowledge today is Sunday. There are piles of evidence drawn from state sources that indicate the cost for CP is 2-3+ times more than life.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

The answer, to me and, I suspect, everyone else who agrees that they should be punished, is clear. "To pay them back". And to be executed was the only way they could be paid back...

So, to kill them for revenge. To kill them to get a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside.