What are your thoughts on the death penalty?

py2006

I just watched an interesting online documentary about legal executions down through history. I personally find the thoughts of this horrifying. It is something I don't agree with no matter what the reason. The whole concept of killing somebody because they have committed the evil act of killing to be hypocritical to say the least.

I believe its barbaric and evil and makes the government who authorizes it just as bad as the person they are going to have legally killed.

Obviously, there are some really evil people out there. We only have to look at recent events in Norway. What is an alternative to the death penalty? I am not sure! Is removing these people from society, depriving them of freedom not enough? Let them see out their remaining days isolated from people.

What are your thoughts? Would you like to see it re-introduced into Irish society?

MitchKoobski

Don't agree with it, but can understand the times when people would call for it. If it's ever introduced in Ireland it will be a HUGE step back.

Innocent people that are put in prison can be exhonerated and released. You can't bring an innocent person who was executed back from the dead. You can't teach people killing is wrong, and then go and kill someone and say it was in the name of the law.

I recommend this for viewing on the matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wntitiiLotk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKSV9F_-VdU

Mat the trasher

Calm and collected, I think its wrong.

If its about someone who hurt someone close/child etc., Kill them.

I think that sums up what happens with the death penalty debate. People are emotional and they make emotional decisions. This applies to the jury every bit as much as the defendent.

dlofnep

No - Because you can never be 100% certain of someone's guilt and 100% sure the system will catch the right person.

partyatmygaff

dlofnep wrote: »

No - Because you can never be 100% certain of someone's guilt and 100% sure the system will catch the right person.

And what if it's patently obvious?

Take for example a mass murderer where there is plenty of evidence and an admission of guilt?


I still wouldn't agree with it but there are many cases where there is no doubt whatsoever over someone's guilt.

celticcrash

Hang em high

Zascar

Sorry I'm going to go on the other side of the fence here. If someone is quite clearly guilty and beyond any reasonable chance of rehabilitation - and has proved they are absolutely unsafe to live in our society, or is definitely going to spend the rest of their lives behind bars anyway, we should not have to foot the bill of 60+ per year to keep them locked up for 50+ years. Watching all those America's hardest prisons programs where there are complete nutcases who consider themselves 'Penitentiary Orientated' and have absolutely zero consideration for any laws or other people - the death penalty is ok in my opinion. There is not enough incentive not to do really bad things over and over again. If there was, maybe they would think twice.

celticcrash

What about the people who murdered the economy, causing mass depression. mass stress, nervous break downs, mass unemployment,
wage slaves, homelessness, suicide, poverty, pensioners dying because they cant afford to put on their heating, I could go on and on.
There is a good days shooting left in this country.

paky

i'd be against the death penalty, its hypocritical and contrary to law. but if the state was at war the death penalty may be necessary.

dlofnep

partyatmygaff wrote: »

And what if it's patently obvious?

No. There is no way to ever determine a distinction between being 100% certain, and 99% certain.

The death penalty has already seen a number of cases throughout history where the wrong person has been convicted, and killed.

py2006

If you consider murder to be wrong then you must consider murder of somebody as punishment wrong!

Wolfe Tone

The death penalty is a disgrace and is barbaric.

Logical Fallacy

I'm not even going to lie, i love the idea of the death penalty for certain crimes. I think it would be a great world if by murdering someone you ended up losing your own life...and that we could be absolutely 100% certain that all convictions were accurate and that the death penalty would have the affect of lessening the instances of serious crimes.

The thing is we can't be 100% certain and endless evidence shows the death penalty is highly ineffective at preventing serious crimes.

As such, i am willing to temper my inner voice that screams for justice paid in blood and accept the fact that the death penalty is a misplaced and idiotic attempt to deliver justice.

looky loo

Tell that to the parents of the kids killed in Oslo, Norway. I hope he gets the death penalty, or better yet, send him out in the woods and have hunters track him with guns, on an island, the same way he treated those poor people.

Logical Fallacy

looky loo wrote: »

Tell that to the parents of the kids killed in Oslo, Norway. I hope he gets the death penalty, or better yet, send him out in the woods and have hunters track him with guns, on an island, the same way he treated those poor people.

He won't.

Norway doesn't have the death penalty.

celticcrash

No lock them up, with all their needs attended to, costing the tax payer 100,000 a year for high security. Then life does not mean life in this country, 4 years to 12 years is the avarage. The bad ones come out and do the same again, with nothing to fear but a warm bed and the best of grub and their bed linen is changed 2 times a week. free tv free everything free, they dont have to work if they dont want to.
I have to stop there its sounding very tempting.

Logical Fallacy

celticcrash wrote: »

No lock them up, with all their needs attended to, costing the tax payer 100,000 a year for high security. Then life does not mean life in this country, 4 years to 12 years is the avarage. The bad ones come out and do the same again, with nothing to fear but a warm bed and the best of grub and their bed linen is changed 2 times a week. free tv free everything free, they dont have to work if they dont want to.
I have to stop there its sounding very tempting.

Lock who up? Criminals? For which crime? When do you think the death penalty would be better?

Folk need to start bringing more information to their moral outrage parties.

southsiderosie

Zascar wrote: »

Sorry I'm going to go on the other side of the fence here. If someone is quite clearly guilty and beyond any reasonable chance of rehabilitation - and has proved they are absolutely unsafe to live in our society, or is definitely going to spend the rest of their lives behind bars anyway, we should not have to foot the bill of 60+ per year to keep them locked up for 50+ years. Watching all those America's hardest prisons programs where there are complete nutcases who consider themselves 'Penitentiary Orientated' and have absolutely zero consideration for any laws or other people - the death penalty is ok in my opinion. There is not enough incentive not to do really bad things over and over again. If there was, maybe they would think twice.

Numerous states in the US have the death penalty, and the violent crime rates there are much higher than most European countries - which not only do not allow the death penalty, but generally have more lenient sentencing guidelines. So I'm not convinced that there is any relationship between the severity of punishment and crime rates.

looky loo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Lock who up? Criminals? For which crime? When do you think the death penalty would be better?

Folk need to start bringing more information to their moral outrage parties.

So maybe the maximum this guy will get is 21 years, but they are looking into him doing 21years x the number of people he killed. But essentially this guy could be out in 21 years if that doesnt happen.

Outkast_IRE

I have no problem with the death penalty only in cases where there can be no doubt whatsoever of guilt.

I believe the world should be seriously looking at the use of eugenics and chemical castration in the cases of extreme repeat violent offenders .

MitchKoobski

looky loo wrote: »

So maybe the maximum this guy will get is 21 years, but they are looking into him doing 21years x the number of people he killed. But essentially this guy could be out in 21 years if that doesnt happen.

21 years x number of people he killed is putting him away for life with no chance of parole. There is no way in hell he will ever get out, he'll die while serving his time.

A serious crime is committed, and people are given consecutive sentences for the murders. The prison time given is so long that they will die while serving their time. Leave it at that. They're going to die in prison while serving their time, killing them for a nice show of power to the public does nothing to change it other than he dies fatser and by our hands.

If the crime/s are serious enough to consider the death penalty, then they'll be given a sentence long enough to keep them in a cell until they die there.

jammstarr

I would of thought that I'd be in favour of the death penalty but other posters here have said that people have been exonerated and that's changed my view on it I have to say. All things in life are rarely black and white.

looky loo

MitchKoobski wrote: »

21 years x number of people he killed is putting him away for life with no chance of parole. There is no way in hell he will ever get out, he'll die while serving his time.

A serious crime is committed, and people are given consecutive sentences for the murders. The prison time given is so long that they will die while serving their time. Leave it at that. They're going to die in prison while serving their time, killing them for a nice show of power to the public does nothing to change it other than he dies fatser and by our hands.

If the crime/s are serious enough to consider the death penalty, then they'll be given a sentence long enough to keep them in a cell until they die there.

He might only get 21 years, thats the maximum in Norway and this is where he is likely to stay.....http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083,00.html

Will

I'm not sure on the subject. From a purely monetary point of view (a terrible way to view human life) it would be cheaper to just put those who commit the most heinous crimes to death than waste money locking them up in prison until they kick the bucket. Funny thing is though most prisons in the states anyway are privately owned, doing so would damage such institutions I imagine and have knock on effects.

On the flip side I don't believe that someone or some government has the right to decide whether you live or die. I know those who commit murders have done just that and in the eyes have many have forfeited that right. It's a doozie to put it simply.

eoferrall

Disagree as in most cases there is always the possibility of a wrong conviction. This has been shown many times as people released years later when new evidence is found.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

And what if it's patently obvious?

Take for example a mass murderer where there is plenty of evidence and an admission of guilt?


I still wouldn't agree with it but there are many cases where there is no doubt whatsoever over someone's guilt.

This is also true and brings you into the whole debate of how much evidence is conclusive? what is clearly conclusive to one maybe isn't to another looking at it from another viewpoint. Extreme cases as you use above yes clear to everyone, but rare are these cases. who would make the call as to if the information is 100% conclusive?

There are too many risks with the death penalty, aside from the as others have said about hypocrisy and its not overly a punishment if you believe it as a quick way out. making em suffer in a solitary cell would be worse!:D

celticcrash

Sorry about that, yes it was a rant.
There are some people in my town, well known, who have killed many people, Yes they walk the streets, out shopping 2 months ago, I and the shop keeper spotted a certain individual across coming out of a shop across the way. We looked a each other with disbelief. This individual is responable for over half a dozen murders. And thats not including the herion hes pushing on kids who overdose.
And no I dont think his going to find GOD soon.
What do u think happens when u lock up someone like that.
Do you think that society is safe from him now that hes locked away.
No he finds more connections and organises hes murderous deeds
while hes locked up safe in prison.
Given me some logical thinking here I am dying to know.

partyatmygaff

eoferrall wrote: »

This is also true and brings you into the whole debate of how much evidence is conclusive? what is clearly conclusive to one maybe isn't to another looking at it from another viewpoint. Extreme cases as you use above yes clear to everyone, but rare are these cases. who would make the call as to if the information is 100% conclusive?

Well if there had to be a death penalty then it would be better if it were only handed down in cases where there is doubtless evidence to support the conviction.

As cases with doubtless, foolproof evidence are rare then by consequence the death penalty would also be rarely used.

eoferrall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well if there had to be a death penalty then it would be better if it were only handed down in cases where there is doubtless evidence to support the conviction.

As cases with doubtless, foolproof evidence are rare then by consequence the death penalty would also be rarely used.

I agree, but due to the rarity is it worth having the process? I'm not up to speed with it all, but does the injection cost much to store? can't see it being worth building a facility to house an electric chair.

I think we are debating the same point and in complete agreement! I would not like to see it in ireland, but if it was here I would like it to be used extremely rarely when evidence is overwhelming. and also that no one can apply for the death penalty in a case. should be DPP or whoever only. no applications.

paky

i dont think executing someone by mistake is a strong enough reason to oppose the death penalty. there are moral questions which need answering such as who has the right to take life and so on. putting someone to death makes you just as guilty as the one who is condemed and doesnt make it right

celticcrash

Some people read things in the paper, come on here and give there view.
Reading about something on the paper and living it are different realities.
When you know people for real and see what they go through for real, after a murder being commited on a family member by a serial killer or their kid who just died of an overdose.
There is no logic to that.
There is no reason to that.
Are you going to ask the parents to intellectualise that.
Lets do the Irish thing and talk about it while our kids die.
Lets sit on the fence and hide behind false morals while our kids die.
Lets not take action.
Lets read it in the paper and tut tut to ourselves, and than flip over to
The sports page.

The Scientician

The state shouldn't be allowed murder.

eoferrall

celticcrash wrote: »

Some people read things in the paper, come on here and give there view.
Reading about something on the paper and living it are different realities.
When you know people for real and see what they go through for real, after a murder being commited on a family member by a serial killer or their kid who just died of an overdose.
There is no logic to that.
There is no reason to that.
Are you going to ask the parents to intellectualise that.
Lets do the Irish thing and talk about it while our kids die.
Lets sit on the fence and hide behind false morals while our kids die.
Lets not take action.
Lets read it in the paper and tut tut to ourselves, and than flip over to
The sports page.

And how would the murder of the murderer/drug dealer whatever make the family feel better?

sam34

moved from tgc to ah as it's more a general discussion than a male-specific one

Hangballlouie

I think it's gas!

celticcrash

Yes I know parents personally who would love to see these murders and death pedalers face the death penalty so as not to see more kids die and
have their familys wrecked and go through what they have to go through.
And the furstrating thing is, if they let their feelings go public they know that another family member could be next and thats a reality.

diddley

After recently reading about this case in the UK I decided that the death penalty is, in some cases, justified.

Unfortunately none of them got it though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Capper

I just don't think people like that appreciate/deserve life since they're capable of such 'inhumanity'.

py2006

Folks, you can't kill evil.....with evil!

Biggins

Emotionally at times I would like to see it.
However thinking rationally, no, I would have to reject it.

partyatmygaff

py2006 wrote: »

Folks, you can't kill evil.....with evil!

Killing isn't always necessarily evil.

If there's a mass murderer in the process of murdering innocent people in plain sight, it'd be quite alright to kill them to prevent further loss of innocent life.


Killing them post facto when the imminent danger has passed just seems barbaric however.

celticcrash

The closest some people come to murder or death on here is csi
or diehard.

Kevin Duffy

looky loo wrote: »

Tell that to the parents of the kids killed in Oslo, Norway. I hope he gets the death penalty, or better yet, send him out in the woods and have hunters track him with guns, on an island, the same way he treated those poor people.

I may have missed it, but I don't recall those families calling for the death penalty. There have been media claims that "it has triggered calls", but to my knowledge it hasn't been the families making the calls.
Are you electing yourself spokesperson for those families? Or just projecting your own views onto them to use them as fuel for your argument? One is arrogant, one is shameful.

On a general note; it doesn't work, it's hypocritical, it leads to a societal view of violence as righteous, it leaves no marigin for error such as a system opertated by humans needs, it doesn't bring back victims or offer restorative justice. It's only point is to fill the need for vengence and that's a gap in your soul you never fill if you let it open.

Tipsy McSwagger

I think convicted murderers should have to go on a gameshow like The Running Man. Last man standing wins a trip to Moneygall.

0O7

its some mothers son... (or daughter) i dont believe in it, if somebody is killed they "get away" with the suffering and prison etc.... if somebody did something bad enough that they derserve to die, i think lock them up and throw away the key...

if they are put to death, they escape the long days of sitting in a room staring at a wall, and its their family that will be punished...

Einhard

It's entirely wrong, in all circumstances, and yes, before someone brings it up, if someone murdered my family I'd think the same way. And, seeing as it was removed from the Constitution through referendum in 2001, I'm in the majority on this! Go do-gooders, go!!:p

Einhard

Zascar wrote: »

Sorry I'm going to go on the other side of the fence here. If someone is quite clearly guilty and beyond any reasonable chance of rehabilitation - and has proved they are absolutely unsafe to live in our society, or is definitely going to spend the rest of their lives behind bars anyway, we should not have to foot the bill of 60+ per year to keep them locked up for 50+ years. Watching all those America's hardest prisons programs where there are complete nutcases who consider themselves 'Penitentiary Orientated' and have absolutely zero consideration for any laws or other people - the death penalty is ok in my opinion. There is not enough incentive not to do really bad things over and over again. If there was, maybe they would think twice.

So it's not so much a moral issue for you, as a financial one? They cost us money, so kill them?

Liam Byrne

py2006 wrote: »

If you consider murder to be wrong then you must consider murder of somebody as punishment wrong!

No.

If someone rewrites the rules and gives the law and decency the two fingers they've made their choice.

Bring it back, and bring back flogging for all the "known to Gardai" toerags.

7sr2z3fely84g5

i think we would be kicked out of the EU if was introduced,interesting case in Ireland was man convicted in 1985 of cop murder,sentence of death was handed down,but it was then commuted to 40 years by the president at the time on advice of the attorney general.

The death penalty has been used for political gains in the states,example of bush jr having a "zero tolerance" approach when was governor of texas,it hasn't done much to deter crime.

US system is bit odd,your faith lies in geography,so depending on state your trial is in,you could get life or death penalty.

Would rather be in favour of uk system of a tariff system or whole life sentence along with the parole board having final say,not the irish system of the justice minister who has final say on parole boards finding who could be overruled by the next elected justice minister.

l.m

The death penalty is hypocritical and wrong.

Einhard

looky loo wrote: »

Tell that to the parents of the kids killed in Oslo, Norway. I hope he gets the death penalty, or better yet, send him out in the woods and have hunters track him with guns, on an island, the same way he treated those poor people.

Tell that to the parents? How do you know the parents want the death penalty?

Even if they do, there's a reason we have the state, rather than the families of the victims, prosecute criminal trials.

celticcrash wrote: »

Some people read things in the paper, come on here and give there view.
Reading about something on the paper and living it are different realities.
When you know people for real and see what they go through for real, after a murder being commited on a family member by a serial killer or their kid who just died of an overdose.
There is no logic to that.
There is no reason to that.
Are you going to ask the parents to intellectualise that.

The opposite is also true though, in that people automatically assume that, because one has suffered a terrible loss through crime, one must be pro-capital punishment. Indeed, such sentiment is evident in this thread. When Sara Payne was abducted, likely sexually assaulted, and murdered, the Sun and other tabloids ran campaigns demanding the re-introduction of the death penalty, and much of the public were enraged that there was no such punishment for the perpetrator of such a heinous crime. This was all done on behalf of the parents. We were entreated to think of Sara's parents, who would only see justice when their child's murderer was put to death.

Except...the parents didn't want the death penalty, and indeed were abhorred by the suggestion. The tabloids, and the mob all jumped on a bandwagon they themselves had established, and used the tragedy to push their own agenda. The case showed the danger of assuming that people who have been victims automatically wish for the death penalty.

Lets do the Irish thing and talk about it while our kids die.
Lets sit on the fence and hide behind false morals while our kids die.
Lets not take action.
Lets read it in the paper and tut tut to ourselves, and than flip over to
The sports page.

The choice isn't between the death penalty and no penalty, as you are trying to make out. I'm all for longer sentences, and think that, more often than not, life should mean life, but the idea of the state putting people to death leaves me cold.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No.

If someone rewrites the rules and gives the law and decency the two fingers they've made their choice.

Bring it back, and bring back flogging for all the "known to Gardai" toerags.

Liam, you really seem to have lurched to the Right over the past few months. I always thought your posts sensible and reasoned, and now you're advocating that we flog people?

Sulmac

For those who agree with the death penalty because "it's cheaper than locking them up for life":

To execute or not: A question of cost?
States discover it's cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them

After decades of moral arguments reaching biblical proportions, after long, twisted journeys to the nation's highest court and back, the death penalty may be abandoned by several states for a reason having nothing to do with right or wrong:

Money.

Turns out, it is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them, according to a series of recent surveys. Tens of millions of dollars cheaper, politicians are learning, during a tumbling recession when nearly every state faces job cuts and massive deficits.

So an increasing number of them are considering abolishing capital punishment in favor of life imprisonment, not on principle but out of financial necessity.

"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.

Deep into retirement, he lost his faith in an eye for an eye and now speaks against it. What changed a mind so set on the ultimate punishment?

'Waste of time and money'
California's legendarily slow appeals system, which produces an average wait of nearly 20 years from conviction to fatal injection — the longest in the nation. Of the nine convicted killers McCartin sent to death row, only one has died. Not by execution, but from a heart attack in custody.

"Every one of my cases is bogged up in the appellate system," said McCartin, who retired in 1993 after 15 years on the bench.

"It's a waste of time and money," said the 82-year-old, self-described right-wing Republican whose sonorous voice still commands attention. "The only thing it does is prolong the agony of the victims' families."

In 2007, time and money were the reasons New Jersey became the first state to ban executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976.

Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine commuted the executions of 10 men to life imprisonment without parole. Legal costs were too great and produced no result, lawmakers said. After spending an estimated $4.2 million for each death sentence, the state had executed no one since 1963. Also, eliminating capital punishment eliminated the risk of executing an innocent person.

Out of 36 remaining states with the death penalty, at least eight have considered legislation this year to end it — Maryland, Nebraska, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, New Hampshire, Washington and Kansas — an uncommon marriage between eastern liberals and western conservatives, built on economic hardship.

"This is the first time in which cost has been the prevalent issue in discussing the death penalty," said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a data clearinghouse that favors abolition of capital punishment.

DNA evidence
The most recent arguments against it centered on the ever-increasing number of convicts cleared by DNA evidence.

Some of the worst cases occurred in Illinois. In 2000, then-Gov. George H. Ryan placed a moratorium on executions after 13 people had been exonerated from death row for reasons including genetic testing and recanted testimony.

Ryan declared the system "so fraught with error that it has come close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life."

He commuted the sentences of all 167 death row convicts, most to life imprisonment without parole. His moratorium is still in effect.

Across the country, the number of prisoners exonerated and released from death row is more than 130, with thousands of appeals clogging the courts.

Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons: They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses.

After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.

In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.

The panel, which agreed with California Chief Justice Ronald M. George that the state's death penalty system was "dysfunctional," blamed exorbitant costs on delays in finding qualified public defenders, a severe backlog in appellate reviews, and a high rate of cases being overturned on constitutional grounds.

"Failures in the administration of California's death penalty law create cynicism and disrespect for the rule of law," concluded the 117-page report.

Some prominent Californians have asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to get rid of executions. Especially now, as service cuts and tax increases are pegged to fill a $42 billion budget hole. But it appears that the Republican governor will not abandon capital punishment anytime soon.

Meanwhile, the nationwide number of death sentences handed down has declined over the past decade, from 284 in 1999 to 111 in 2008. Reasons differ significantly, depending on who's providing them: Pro-death penalty activists say it's because crime rates have declined and execution is a strong deterrent; abolitionists say it's because jurors and judges are reluctant to risk taking a life when future scientific tests could prove the accused not guilty.

Executions, too, are dropping. There were 98 in 1999; 37 in 2008.

Still, the costs of capital punishment weigh heavily on legislators facing Solomon-like choices in these dismal economic times.

In Kansas, Republican state Sen. Caroline McGinn is pushing a bill that would repeal the death penalty effective July 1. Kansas, which voted to suspend tax refunds, faces a budget deficit of nearly $200 million. McGinn urged fellow legislators "to think outside the box" for ways to save money. According to a state survey, capital cases were 70 percent more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases.

In New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson recently said his longtime support of capital punishment was wavering — and belt-tightening was one the reasons.
As the state tries to plug a $450 million budget shortfall with cuts to schools and environmental agencies, a bill to end executions has already passed the House as a cost-saving measure. The state supreme court has ruled that more money must be given for public defenders in death penalty cases, but legislators have yet to act.

In Maryland, a 2008 Urban Institute study said taxpayers forked out at least $37.2 million for each of five executions since the death penalty was re-enacted in 1978. The survey, which examined 162 capital cases, found that simply seeking the death penalty added $186 million to prosecution costs.

Gov. Martin O'Malley, who disdains the death penalty on moral and financial grounds, is pushing a bill to repeal it.

'Calculate the cost'
There are many, of course, who refuse to change their minds, believing execution is the ultimate wage of the ultimate sin. They also say that death penalty cases don't have to be so expensive.

Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a pro-capital-punishment group, said, "Having an effective appeals process might very well cost less."

States "calculate the cost as if these people are going to spend their whole lives on death row. We should be revamping the appeals process so that these cases move more quickly," Scheidegger said.

But court systems and their costs vary greatly among states, as does the time it takes to exhaust appeals. It's doubtful that change could come quickly enough to generate savings during this roiling recession.

"It's all about money," said McCartin, the former California judge. "The reasons I changed my mind were between that and how the victims' families just get raped during appeals."

But if convicted killers get life imprisonment instead of death, is that letting them off easy?

Not a chance, says 52-year-old Gordon "Randy" Steidl. He lived on death row and then in the general prison population, after his sentence was commuted to life. He preferred his former accommodations.

Steidl was released in 2004 after being exonerated of the 1986 stabbing deaths of a newlywed couple in Paris, Ill. He had an alibi for the night of the murders, corroborated by others. But he was convicted on eyewitness testimony provided by the town drunk and the town drug addict. Both later recanted.

The state of Illinois spent $3.5 million trying to execute him, "only to end up giving me a life sentence," Steidl said. "And then 5 1/2 years after that, I was exonerated."

He spent 12 years in a tiny cell on death row. Then he was thrown into "gen pop," with its snarling mass of an open cellblock, where the prospect of being stabbed, raped or worse loomed constantly, alongside deafening noise and psychotic cell mates.

"If you really want to kill someone, give them life without parole," Steidl said in an even voice. He speaks of his troubled past as if it was trapped under glass or locked behind bars — visible but no longer able to torture him.

"It's worse than dying."

msnbc.com

I'm sure it's much cheaper in countries like China, but they're hardly a model of governance and justice to aspire to.

Liam Byrne

Liam, you really seem to have lurched to the Right over the past few months. I always thought your posts sensible and reasoned, and now you're advocating that we flog people?

I'd always consider myself centre; give everyone equal rights BUT base it on their actions.

If they show that they don't want to be a part of a fair and decent society, what option is there?

If there was an option for deportation I'd forego the above, because all I want is to allow decent people to live without threats and grief caused by scum.