A plea deal is a slam dunk while a trial is unpredictable. He'll never be free again. Should we just kill him? That's above my paygrade.
90 life sentences for gunman who killed 23 people in racist El Paso Walmart attack
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
A plea deal is a slam dunk while a trial is unpredictable. He'll never be free again. Should we just kill him? That's above my paygrade.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Not true. This guy will cost, currently, about $36,000 a year to keep in prison. If the trial and execution cost say, $1 million the payback is about 30 years. That means it's cheaper to try, convict, and kill this fuckstick than it is to give him a life sentence. Then, I'll toss this in. Let's say this asswipe attacks and injures or kills a guard while in prison. Was that worth the cost of keeping him alive in prison for life rather than offing him?
Wrong again, Terry. You need to stop listening to Tucker and start reading more facts.
OTOH, I'm good with executing traitors, such as oath breakers, and terrorists, such as White Supremacist Extremists. It's cheapest to just shoot the fuckers down in the act.
https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Is_the_death_penalty_more_expensive_than_life_in_prison
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
You really are bad at this.
First, S. Dakota isn't the federal prison system. In the federal system it costs an average of $36,000 per year in 2018, and likely more like $39,000 today.
In 2018, a report showed, the Bureau of Prisons found that the average cost for a prisoner was $36,299.25 per year , and per day $99.45.
https://prisonsreview.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-keep-someone-in-prison/
I tossed out an absurd cost for the trial and conviction of $1 million, far more than you show in your pathetic example. That works out to about a payback in 30 years over the cost of keeping someone in federal prison. So, if this guy lives more than 30 years in prison giving him a life sentence is more expensive than trail and execution.
There are other considerations too. For example, how long should it take to execute someone once convicted. Those against the death penalty actively work to keep inmates facing it alive and appealing their cases for decades. Where's the public's right to a speedy trail in that? Appeals shouldn't take decades to wend their way through the courts raising the costs of keeping someone alive who should have been killed off years ago. Your source doesn't even consider that aspect of this.
Even your source admits killing an inmate off is cheaper than a life sentence:
While the legal costs were greater, information from the South Dakota Department of Correction shows the average cost of long-term incarceration for a prisoner sentenced to death is lower than that of a prisoner serving a life sentence. Because there are no extra expenses involved in housing condemned prisoners, and those prisoners are incarcerated for less time in state prison, the average savings per prisoner is $159,523.
op cit.
Also, offing an inmate rather than a life sentence prevents them from doing additional crimes and felonies in prison. Multiple life sentences are no deterrent to that.
Of course you did, Terry. You're at a stage in your life where you desire to cherry-pick your facts.
Are we agreed that shooting down traitors and terrorists in the act saves taxpayer money?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
That's possible, but also tyrannical the way you propose it. After all, your proposal is anyone that disagrees with you is either a traitor or a terrorist and deserves to die, no trial, no jury, no evidence beyond your own accusation needed.
More proof you are becoming delusional, Terry, since I never said that. You are assuming I'm like the militia assholes taking the law into my own hands instead of letting our heroes in blue handle it. You were also blind to the point about "in the act".
Do you know the difference between an act of treason or terrorism versus a difference of opinion, Terry? Or are you blind to that too?
Killing someone to prove killing is wrong. makes no sense. The countries that have and use the death penalty are the worst of the worst. Three-quarter of the world's countries have abolished, or do not use the delth penalty. Most that do are backward and brutal like some middle-east countries. That is what countries the rightys want to be more like.
cawacko
Well-known member
I understand all the arguments against the death penalty. To me, IF we’re going to have it this is the type of case it should be used for. Just an extremely heinous act where there is no question of guilt.
To your point I guess there’s in theory always a risk at trial but hard to imagine there’s any reasonable doubt that can come from this act.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
The guy will rot in prison for being bat shit crazy.
We cage people for being sick instead of humanely euthanizing them.
Our ritualistic execution is morally wrong,
and one Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional
before another reversed that,
showing how our courts are political,
exactly what they're not supposed to be.
Euthanasia is merciful, however, and needs to be legalized.
We cage people for being sick instead of humanely euthanizing them.
Our ritualistic execution is morally wrong,
and one Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional
before another reversed that,
showing how our courts are political,
exactly what they're not supposed to be.
Euthanasia is merciful, however, and needs to be legalized.