[Illusion]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

They should have some budget cuts and make room for it

Since 1978 California and the US government have together spent some $4bn on the state's death row, yet only 13 prisoners have been executed. That's an average of $308m for each execution.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by mr black ↗

Since 1978 California and the US government have together spent some $4bn on the state's death row, yet only 13 prisoners have been executed. That's an average of $308m for each execution.

That is simply inflation due to cause.
Its like a plumber charging double for having to crawl under the house to do something that actually cost nothing too do.

[Illusion]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

That is simply inflation due to cause.
Its like a plumber charging double for having to crawl under the house to do something that actually cost nothing too do.

It’s true that the actual execution costs taxpayers fairly little (approx. $100 per lethal cocktail). However, the outside costs associated with the death penalty are much higher. Defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. On average a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole. And that's not including appeals. When it's all said and done it’s 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by mr black ↗

It’s true that the actual execution costs taxpayers fairly little (approx. $100 per lethal cocktail). However, the outside costs associated with the death penalty are much higher. Defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. On average a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole. And that's not including appeals. When it's all said and done it’s 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive.

Which the state justify imploring on the public after the fact. The trials don't differ in nature of proceedings, the only difference is the sentencing.

But after a court rules death, the state taxes the hell out of all proceeding retroactive from the time the crime was committed with a "death penalty" label.

Another words, overly inflated, manipulating the public into accepting it for the -cause-

It is harder for states to justify 300 million for a guy in a 12x12, but it is easy too fool the public in thinking it somehow cost more in the proceedings.

Which in truth, never changes until sentencing date.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Which the state justify imploring on the public after the fact. The trials don't differ in nature of proceedings, the only difference is the sentencing.

But after a court rules death, the state taxes the hell out of all proceeding retroactive from the time the crime was committed with a "death penalty" label.

Another words, overly inflated, manipulating the public into accepting it for the -cause-

It is harder for states to justify 300 million for a guy in a 12x12, but it is easy too fool the public in thinking it somehow cost more in the proceedings.

Which in truth, never changes until sentencing date.

A lot of it is due to the appeal process, but without that how many innocent people might have been put to death? DNA has shown us just how rotten the system can be for some people.
You're only entitled to the best defender you can afford

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

A lot of it is due to the appeal process, but without that how many innocent people might have been put to death? DNA has shown us just how rotten the system can be for some people.
You're only entitled to the best defender you can afford

Plenty of people doing life terms apeal.....out of boredom.


Difs is..

State says an death roll inmates apeal cost more than a bored lifer's

[30564U]

Seventy five years for the murder of three police officers? Sounds a bit lite to me. How about 300 years...100 years for each officer?

[rob666]

Originally Posted by 30564U ↗

Seventy five years for the murder of three police officers? Sounds a bit lite to me. How about 300 years...100 years for each officer?

You're probably right.

Minimum 75 years before he can apply for parole, he's already 30ish....... He'll never get out.

Totally agree in many cases our justice system is far too lenient. I'm all for rehabilitation, but too often dangerous people get out and just victimize people again.
Our courts need to do a better job protecting society.

[TheVrist]

I'm in the frame of mind that we create Australia 2.0 for long timer/repeat offenders, and the most dangerous.. Save our prisons for real rehabilitation for short timer, first offenders.

[Illusion]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

The proceedings were fast.

He pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder from the start, so there was no trial. The Judge advised him at the time that he could be facing consecutive life sentences with no chance of parole for 75 years and that's exactly what he game him. He'll be eligible for parole when he's 99 years old...