Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:

I was pro execution when I thought about how many executed people ever
came back to repeat their crimes. The number is amazingly low.

I was anti execution when I learned that it costs more to execute a
prisoner than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.

If it's about quarantine to prevent repeat offences then it does not
have to be about revenge or justice. Then it can be about the cost of
the quarantine against the cost of an absolute guarantee against repeat
offenses. I'm not fully in one camp or the other but I think in cases
where the guilt is not in doubt I don't think the discussion runs in the
right direction. This time guilt was in doubt, argh.

On 23/09/2011 3:12 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:
>
> I was pro execution when I thought about how many executed people ever
> came back to repeat their crimes. The number is amazingly low.

Is it that low? I just checked some Canadian stats for recidivism rates.
A study tracked parolees for various crimes and noted recidivism rates
after one year and two years. Of 47 convicts paroled for murder, only
one returned to prison for murder within one year, 2.13%. Two more ,
4.6% went back in the second year.

There is a much higher recidivism for manslaughter, 18.2% in the first
year and 32.75% in the second year. It should be noted that murderers
often cop a plea to manslaughter rather than risk conviction on a murder
charge. Then there are the cases where they are charged with murder and
end up convicted on the lesser charge of manslaughter.


I am not a major proponent of capital punishment, but I have no
difficulty with it being applied to repeat murderers.


>
> I was anti execution when I learned that it costs more to execute a
> prisoner than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.
>
> If it's about quarantine to prevent repeat offences then it does not
> have to be about revenge or justice. Then it can be about the cost of
> the quarantine against the cost of an absolute guarantee against repeat
> offenses. I'm not fully in one camp or the other but I think in cases
> where the guilt is not in doubt I don't think the discussion runs in the
> right direction. This time guilt was in doubt, argh.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:12:55 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 23/09/2011 3:12 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> > Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>
> >> I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:
> >
> > I was pro execution when I thought about how many executed people ever
> > came back to repeat their crimes. The number is amazingly low.
>
> Is it that low? I just checked some Canadian stats for recidivism rates.
> A study tracked parolees for various crimes and noted recidivism rates
> after one year and two years. Of 47 convicts paroled for murder, only
> one returned to prison for murder within one year, 2.13%. Two more ,
> 4.6% went back in the second year.
>
> There is a much higher recidivism for manslaughter, 18.2% in the first
> year and 32.75% in the second year. It should be noted that murderers
> often cop a plea to manslaughter rather than risk conviction on a murder
> charge. Then there are the cases where they are charged with murder and
> end up convicted on the lesser charge of manslaughter.
>
>
> I am not a major proponent of capital punishment, but I have no
> difficulty with it being applied to repeat murderers.

I'm with you, but he said there is an astonishingly low rate of
recidivism for those who have been executed. Something like 0%.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> I was pro execution when I thought about how many executed people ever
>> came back to repeat their crimes. The number is amazingly low.
>
> Is it that low? I just checked some Canadian stats for recidivism rates.

People who were executed for crimes and then returned to do the same
crime again? Really? If you're a serious Christian you may want to
suggest that Jesus incited riots before and after his crucificion.
Otherwise the answer is going to be zero. Dead people commit zero
crimes. Execution is absolutely certain insurance against repeat
offenses. When it's applied incorrectly to an innocent they still never
come back to commit a crime.

Dead people don't even get traffic tickets. Sometimes they vote but
that's really a crime by the live person commiting fraud. Not the same
thing.

> A study tracked parolees for various crimes and noted recidivism rates
> after one year and two years. Of 47 convicts paroled for murder, only
> one returned to prison for murder within one year, 2.13%. Two more ,
> 4.6% went back in the second year.

That's still far higher than how many escape from life sentences in
prison and them kill while they are out on the lamb.

> I am not a major proponent of capital punishment, but I have no
> difficulty with it being applied to repeat murderers.

I'm pretty ready to lock them up after the first one. I'm more on the
fence when it comes to an absolute certainty they will never do it
again. To me it's the price. It costs more to execute someone than to
keep them locked up for life. And the chance of escape.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:30:59 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>>> I was pro execution when I thought about how many executed people ever
>>> came back to repeat their crimes. The number is amazingly low.
>>
>> Is it that low? I just checked some Canadian stats for recidivism rates.
>
> People who were executed for crimes and then returned to do the same
> crime again? Really? If you're a serious Christian you may want to
> suggest that Jesus incited riots before and after his crucificion.
> Otherwise the answer is going to be zero. Dead people commit zero
> crimes. Execution is absolutely certain insurance against repeat
> offenses. When it's applied incorrectly to an innocent they still never
> come back to commit a crime.

that's why we should execute anyone who is even *arrested* for murder. why
take chances?

your pal,
blake

On 9/23/2011 5:30 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:

> I'm pretty ready to lock them up after the first one. I'm more on the
> fence when it comes to an absolute certainty they will never do it
> again. To me it's the price. It costs more to execute someone than to
> keep them locked up for life. And the chance of escape.

I picked your post as a victim but I just wanted to say that while I'm
not a proponent of the death penalty, I think it might have come about
to give the family of the victim closure. I could be wrong. Often am.

On 24/09/2011 8:39 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 9/23/2011 5:30 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty ready to lock them up after the first one. I'm more on the
>> fence when it comes to an absolute certainty they will never do it
>> again. To me it's the price. It costs more to execute someone than to
>> keep them locked up for life. And the chance of escape.
>
> I picked your post as a victim but I just wanted to say that while I'm
> not a proponent of the death penalty, I think it might have come about
> to give the family of the victim closure. I could be wrong. Often am.

You may not think that i you knew the sorts of crimes for which the
death penalty was applied......theft, treason, cutting down trees,
killing chickens. In 18th century Britain, there were 222 crimes to
which death penalty could be applied. The US, having started off as
British colonies, has similar laws. In Virginia the Divine Moral and
Martial Laws provide death penalty for things like stealing grapes and
trading with Indians. In New York Duke's Laws the death penatly could
be applied to a person who struck their mother or father, and for
denying the "true God"

On 9/24/2011 8:52 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 24/09/2011 8:39 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>> On 9/23/2011 5:30 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>
>>> I'm pretty ready to lock them up after the first one. I'm more on the
>>> fence when it comes to an absolute certainty they will never do it
>>> again. To me it's the price. It costs more to execute someone than to
>>> keep them locked up for life. And the chance of escape.
>>
>> I picked your post as a victim but I just wanted to say that while I'm
>> not a proponent of the death penalty, I think it might have come about
>> to give the family of the victim closure. I could be wrong. Often am.
>
> You may not think that i you knew the sorts of crimes for which the
> death penalty was applied......theft, treason, cutting down trees,
> killing chickens. In 18th century Britain, there were 222 crimes to
> which death penalty could be applied. The US, having started off as
> British colonies, has similar laws. In Virginia the Divine Moral and
> Martial Laws provide death penalty for things like stealing grapes and
> trading with Indians. In New York Duke's Laws the death penatly could be
> applied to a person who struck their mother or father, and for denying
> the "true God"

That's all very interesting and barbaric, but I was thinking of the
death penalty for murder. It's hard to believe in the death penalty for
cutting down trees or theft.

Cheryl wrote:

> It's hard to believe in the death penalty for cutting down trees or theft.

....but maybe if people clap their hands...

Bob

On 25/09/2011 1:10 AM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 9/24/2011 8:52 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 24/09/2011 8:39 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>>> On 9/23/2011 5:30 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm pretty ready to lock them up after the first one. I'm more on the
>>>> fence when it comes to an absolute certainty they will never do it
>>>> again. To me it's the price. It costs more to execute someone than to
>>>> keep them locked up for life. And the chance of escape.
>>>
>>> I picked your post as a victim but I just wanted to say that while I'm
>>> not a proponent of the death penalty, I think it might have come about
>>> to give the family of the victim closure. I could be wrong. Often am.
>>
>> You may not think that i you knew the sorts of crimes for which the
>> death penalty was applied......theft, treason, cutting down trees,
>> killing chickens. In 18th century Britain, there were 222 crimes to
>> which death penalty could be applied. The US, having started off as
>> British colonies, has similar laws. In Virginia the Divine Moral and
>> Martial Laws provide death penalty for things like stealing grapes and
>> trading with Indians. In New York Duke's Laws the death penatly could be
>> applied to a person who struck their mother or father, and for denying
>> the "true God"
>
> That's all very interesting and barbaric, but I was thinking of the
> death penalty for murder. It's hard to believe in the death penalty for
> cutting down trees or theft.
>

You may well have been thinking that, but you thought the death penalty
may have come about to give the family closure, a term and a concept
that was not even known a century ago. Depending on the circumstances,
homicide was often considered a lesser crime than theft. In days gone
by, someone might be hanged stealing a loaf of bread but get a fine for
killing someone.

Cheryl wrote:
>Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty ready to lock them up after the first one. I'm more on the
>> fence when it comes to an absolute certainty they will never do it
>> again. To me it's the price. It costs more to execute someone than to
>> keep them locked up for life. And the chance of escape.
>
>I picked your post as a victim but I just wanted to say that while I'm
>not a proponent of the death penalty, I think it might have come about
>to give the family of the victim closure. I could be wrong. Often am.

"Closure" is absolute nonsense, does anyone really think the victims
ever forget... is anyone suggesting the victims become lobotomized by
the execution? I for one would never afford the convicted the same
mercy I'd afford a beloved pet... I'd want to know every day that the
POS was existing a living death, all alone in a dark cage. Execution
is both a mercy killing and a slap in the face for the victims, not
justice. And outlawing execution would stifle the outcrys about
killing a pitifully few wrongfully accused because even one is too
many. Execution degrades society to the level of the convicted, lower
even. And I'm not the least bit religious but for all who claim to be
god fearing execution is the ultimate hypocrisy. Were there "closure"
there'd be no headstones at cemeteries... there'd be no cemeteries.

> I'm pretty ready to lock them up after the first one. I'm more on the
> fence when it comes to an absolute certainty they will never do it
> again. To me it's the price.



It costs more to execute someone than to
> keep them locked up for life.

That is the problem that needs to be solved.

Doug Freyburger > wrote in :

> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:
>
> I was pro execution when I thought about how many executed people ever
> came back to repeat their crimes. The number is amazingly low.
>
> I was anti execution when I learned that it costs more to execute a
> prisoner than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.
>



The cost of an execution (rough guesstimate) would be $10K, and that's
including the gourmet snacks for the guests afterwards.


You've just got caught up in the bleeding heart hype of how much the blood
sucking (all knowing) civil libetarian lawyers will (all knowingly) milk out
of the system.


To keep a convicted murderer alive for the rest of its natural life is an
horrendous cost.


--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania

Nothing ever truely dies
the Universe wastes nothing
everything is simply... transformed