Drug Gangs Taking Over US Public Lands

[+DragonsWest]

When I was in the civilian LEO academy a few decades ago, I was given a comparison to ponder:

In Florida, it costs roughly $25,000 a year to house a maximum security inmate.

It costs $5,500,000 to legally kill that same inmate.

I'm not sure how much those figures would change due to inflation.

It would seem that economics is in favor of ending the death penalty.

 

I would love to see the logic behind that $5,500,000 claim.

 

Appeal, appeal, appeal, appeal, yet another appeal, final appeal, politics getting involved, final final appeal, more politics, yet another final appeal.

 

All you need to see is there.

[+bittsen]

When I was in the civilian LEO academy a few decades ago, I was given a comparison to ponder:

In Florida, it costs roughly $25,000 a year to house a maximum security inmate.

It costs $5,500,000 to legally kill that same inmate.

I'm not sure how much those figures would change due to inflation.

It would seem that economics is in favor of ending the death penalty.

 

I would love to see the logic behind that $5,500,000 claim.

 

Appeal, appeal, appeal, appeal, yet another appeal, final appeal, politics getting involved, final final appeal, more politics, yet another final appeal.

 

All you need to see is there.

That's not money that is paid to execute someone. It's money paid to stop from executing someone.

[Clan Riffster]

That's not money that is paid to execute someone. It's money paid to stop from executing someone.

Not quite. Florida, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that anyone charged with a crime which would warrant the death penalty deserves the best legal defense money can buy. Florida has also decided that us taxpayers get to foot the bill for these legal fees. So, if Florida decides they want to kill an arrestee, us taxpayers get to pay for it. I don't know if other states follow this same silly notion.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

When I was in the civilian LEO academy a few decades ago, I was given a comparison to ponder:

In Florida, it costs roughly $25,000 a year to house a maximum security inmate.

It costs $5,500,000 to legally kill that same inmate.

I'm not sure how much those figures would change due to inflation.

It would seem that economics is in favor of ending the death penalty.

 

I would love to see the logic behind that $5,500,000 claim.

$25,000 / Year to house them for 20 years while lawyers play lawyer games.

$100. for chemicals.

-----------------------

$500,100

$4,999,900 Lawyers Fees

-----------------------

$5,500,000 Cost to execute someone.

 

Yeah, I can see it.

[+Sioneva]

When I was in the civilian LEO academy a few decades ago, I was given a comparison to ponder:

In Florida, it costs roughly $25,000 a year to house a maximum security inmate.

It costs $5,500,000 to legally kill that same inmate.

I'm not sure how much those figures would change due to inflation.

It would seem that economics is in favor of ending the death penalty.

 

I would love to see the logic behind that $5,500,000 claim.

$25,000 / Year to house them for 20 years while lawyers play lawyer games.

$100. for chemicals.

-----------------------

$500,100

$4,999,900 Lawyers Fees

-----------------------

$5,500,000 Cost to execute someone.

 

Yeah, I can see it.

 

What would happen if all the lawyers were executed?

[+bittsen]

That's not money that is paid to execute someone. It's money paid to stop from executing someone.

Not quite. Florida, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that anyone charged with a crime which would warrant the death penalty deserves the best legal defense money can buy. Florida has also decided that us taxpayers get to foot the bill for these legal fees. So, if Florida decides they want to kill an arrestee, us taxpayers get to pay for it. I don't know if other states follow this same silly notion.

 

I understand that the citizens pay for the appeals.

I was saying that the cost is not to "execute" them. The cost is for those thousands of possible reasons to not execute them (the appeals).

 

Basically the argument is 'by the time the criminal is executed it will have cost XXX amount of dollars' but people try to argue that the execution, itself, cost all that money.

 

When people try to use that argument in a debate against capital punishment they will inflate the one number and deflate the other.

 

I say it's easier and cheaper to administer electro-shock therapy. Does that mean it's the right way to go?

 

BTW, I knew someone who had electro-shock therapy for criminal behavior. He will likely never commit another crime. Of course he will likely never stop drooling or be able to tie his shoes either. In reality he's probably dead now. He wasn't young and I knew him 25 years ago, but you get the point.

[+DragonsWest]

When I was in the civilian LEO academy a few decades ago, I was given a comparison to ponder:

In Florida, it costs roughly $25,000 a year to house a maximum security inmate.

It costs $5,500,000 to legally kill that same inmate.

I'm not sure how much those figures would change due to inflation.

It would seem that economics is in favor of ending the death penalty.

 

I would love to see the logic behind that $5,500,000 claim.

$25,000 / Year to house them for 20 years while lawyers play lawyer games.

$100. for chemicals.

-----------------------

$500,100

$4,999,900 Lawyers Fees

-----------------------

$5,500,000 Cost to execute someone.

 

Yeah, I can see it.

 

What would happen if all the lawyers were executed?

 

So you want a revolution?

[+Gamaliel]

Not quite. Florida, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that anyone charged with a crime which would warrant the death penalty deserves the best legal defense money can buy. Florida has also decided that us taxpayers get to foot the bill for these legal fees. So, if Florida decides they want to kill an arrestee, us taxpayers get to pay for it. I don't know if other states follow this same silly notion.

 

Were I to be arrested and tried for a murder I did not commit, I would voluntarily accept the death penalty to save the taxpayers all those legal expenses, and I'm sure everyone here would do the same.

[+narcissa]

When I was in the civilian LEO academy a few decades ago, I was given a comparison to ponder:

In Florida, it costs roughly $25,000 a year to house a maximum security inmate.

It costs $5,500,000 to legally kill that same inmate.

I'm not sure how much those figures would change due to inflation.

It would seem that economics is in favor of ending the death penalty.

 

I would love to see the logic behind that $5,500,000 claim.

 

I don't think those figures are accurate, but it's no big secret that states with the death penalty pay big time. In many of these cases, the state has to pick up the tab for the defense as well as the prosecution, not to mention additional court costs and security. Many death penalty cases end up in appeals for years, if not decades. It adds up.

 

A very brief search turned up this site with some figures about costs.

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

 

It should be mentioned that the DPIC claims that its mandate is to collect and share information about the death penalty. It has a reputation for being against the death penalty, but it does not officially declare itself to be so.

[+narcissa]

Not quite. Florida, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that anyone charged with a crime which would warrant the death penalty deserves the best legal defense money can buy. Florida has also decided that us taxpayers get to foot the bill for these legal fees. So, if Florida decides they want to kill an arrestee, us taxpayers get to pay for it. I don't know if other states follow this same silly notion.

 

Doesn't your country's constitution guarantee everyone the right to a fair trial? I'm not all that familiar with American law, but I'm pretty sure that's a big one. Inadequate representation would be grounds for appeal on that basis (and the cause for further cost to the state).

 

For that matter, doesn't the US also practice "innocent until proven guilty?"

[+bittsen]

Not quite. Florida, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that anyone charged with a crime which would warrant the death penalty deserves the best legal defense money can buy. Florida has also decided that us taxpayers get to foot the bill for these legal fees. So, if Florida decides they want to kill an arrestee, us taxpayers get to pay for it. I don't know if other states follow this same silly notion.

 

Doesn't your country's constitution guarantee everyone the right to a fair trial? I'm not all that familiar with American law, but I'm pretty sure that's a big one. Inadequate representation would be grounds for appeal on that basis (and the cause for further cost to the state).

 

For that matter, doesn't the US also practice "innocent until proven guilty?"

 

Not quite.

We state "Innocent until proven guilty" but that's very misleading. You can't be officially punished until you are found guilty but your treatment and rights end way before that guilty finding, especially in lesser offenses.

 

An anectdote:

I once had a judge tell me "The officer doesn't have to prove ANYTHING. He wrote you the citation. It's up to you to prove you're innocent."

And then I did.

[+linuxxpert]

I feel it's necessary to snip these tirades in the bud .. so

 

Consider Marijuana as a figurative Line int the Sand.

 

Legalise it and the line moves back to something else. Then something else. Where does the line stick? Meth? Heroin? LSD?

 

Before you bother to blurt out an answer, think it through.

 

Hey, if we legalize murder then all those death row inmate costs go way down.

 

Yup because thats along the same line...

[knowschad]

Not quite. Florida, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that anyone charged with a crime which would warrant the death penalty deserves the best legal defense money can buy. Florida has also decided that us taxpayers get to foot the bill for these legal fees. So, if Florida decides they want to kill an arrestee, us taxpayers get to pay for it. I don't know if other states follow this same silly notion.

 

Doesn't your country's constitution guarantee everyone the right to a fair trial? I'm not all that familiar with American law, but I'm pretty sure that's a big one. Inadequate representation would be grounds for appeal on that basis (and the cause for further cost to the state).

 

For that matter, doesn't the US also practice "innocent until proven guilty?"

 

Not quite.

We state "Innocent until proven guilty" but that's very misleading. You can't be officially punished until you are found guilty but your treatment and rights end way before that guilty finding, especially in lesser offenses.

 

An anectdote:

I once had a judge tell me "The officer doesn't have to prove ANYTHING. He wrote you the citation. It's up to you to prove you're innocent."

And then I did.

If you fell for that line, then you had the wrong lawyer!! The burden of proof is most certainly on the accuser in criminal trials in this country. That's why so many obviously guilty people plea "Not guilty". All they are really saying is, "You can't prove that I did it".

[+bittsen]

Not quite.

We state "Innocent until proven guilty" but that's very misleading. You can't be officially punished until you are found guilty but your treatment and rights end way before that guilty finding, especially in lesser offenses.

 

An anectdote:

I once had a judge tell me "The officer doesn't have to prove ANYTHING. He wrote you the citation. It's up to you to prove you're innocent."

And then I did.

If you fell for that line, then you had the wrong lawyer!! The burden of proof is most certainly on the accuser in criminal trials in this country. That's why so many obviously guilty people plea "Not guilty". All they are really saying is, "You can't prove that I did it".

 

Yes, when a judge tells me that is how it works then I do "fall for the line".

 

The judge was the one deciding, not me.

 

BTW, I also had a judge tell me to shut up while I was giving my testimony once. His exact words were "If you say one more word, any word, even utter a sound, I will hold you in contemt".

 

I knew you had the right to remain silent but didn't know it was a requirement.

 

Actually, in that case I didn't mind so much because he had just heard enough to find me not guilty and felt I was wasting time by continuing to testify.

[+narcissa]

 

That's not money that is paid to execute someone. It's money paid to stop from executing someone.

 

You're right that it's not the cost of the execution alone. It's the additional costs that make it expensive for states to keep the death penalty.

 

I find it astonishing that any state thinks that having the death penalty is worth the risk of executing a wrongly convicted person. Canada abolished the death penalty decades ago.

[CoyoteRed]

Actually, in that case...

Sounds like you're in front of a judge quite a lot.

[+bittsen]

Actually, in that case...

Sounds like you're in front of a judge quite a lot.

 

I used to be, is more like it. I spent enough time in the courtrooms that most judges in Portland knew me by name. The benefit of that is they knew I wasn't a pushover. I won around 30% of the time. Not bad for someone who never went to law school (as was accused by a DA once or twice).

 

If you want to know how many times I was in court, I couldn't tell you. It really was a lot. I've been to court in at least 10 different jurisdictions though. I've won in 5 of them.

[knowschad]

BTW, I also had a judge tell me to shut up while I was giving my testimony once. His exact words were "If you say one more word, any word, even utter a sound, I will hold you in contemt".

Still happens occasionally, doesn't it?

 

Actually, in that case...

Sounds like you're in front of a judge quite a lot.

 

I used to be, is more like it. I spent enough time in the courtrooms that most judges in Portland knew me by name. The benefit of that is they knew I wasn't a pushover. I won around 30% of the time. Not bad for someone who never went to law school (as was accused by a DA once or twice).

 

If you want to know how many times I was in court, I couldn't tell you. It really was a lot. I've been to court in at least 10 different jurisdictions though. I've won in 5 of them.

I don't care about how many times. I wanna know why.

[Clan Riffster]

...but people try to argue that the execution, itself, cost all that money.

They argue that because they have a basic grasp of economics. The state decides to go for the death penalty long before a case ever sees a courtroom. It is at that moment that our money is as good as spent. Go for the death penalty? Cost to the state = $5,500,000 average. Don't go for the death penalty? Cost to the state = $25,000 a year. (according to decades old data) Knowing this ahead of time, the State still decides to follow a course that will result in millions of our tax dollars being spent. Since it is the State that makes the decision, I think it's fair to say it costs us 5.5 million dollars to kill a prisoner. Everything else is semantics.

[+Castle Mischief]

Not quite. Florida, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that anyone charged with a crime which would warrant the death penalty deserves the best legal defense money can buy. Florida has also decided that us taxpayers get to foot the bill for these legal fees. So, if Florida decides they want to kill an arrestee, us taxpayers get to pay for it. I don't know if other states follow this same silly notion.

 

Were I to be arrested and tried for a murder I did not commit, I would voluntarily accept the death penalty to save the taxpayers all those legal expenses, and I'm sure everyone here would do the same.

 

Golly, I know I would.

[knowschad]

Not quite. Florida, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that anyone charged with a crime which would warrant the death penalty deserves the best legal defense money can buy. Florida has also decided that us taxpayers get to foot the bill for these legal fees. So, if Florida decides they want to kill an arrestee, us taxpayers get to pay for it. I don't know if other states follow this same silly notion.

 

Were I to be arrested and tried for a murder I did not commit, I would voluntarily accept the death penalty to save the taxpayers all those legal expenses, and I'm sure everyone here would do the same.

 

Golly, I know I would.

I'm a pretty generous guy, too. Sure... I'd do the same.