Jasper, TX Death Row Inmate Drags State Along, Too!

[CosmicCowboy]

Wow, CC is a ing idiot.

considering the troll source, I'm far from crushed.

Any specific point you would like to refute dip ?

[CuckingFunt]

considering the troll source, I'm far from crushed.

Any specific point you would like to refute dip ?

I'm not sure why you're so convinced that the people on the other side of this argument are the ones who need to refute points or defend their argument. They've posted several published reports showing that it costs considerably more to try/convict/appeal/execute a death row case than it does to keep someone incarcerated for life. For years and years there have been studies done that consistently show this to be the case.

You're the one with your fingers in your ears screaming "la la la" because you don't like what the studies show. The burden of proof lies with you. The responsibility to refute specific points is yours. Go ahead and look for reputable studies confirming your su ion that life imprisonment is the costlier option, if you really give a damn, and kindly share them with us. Until then your argument amounts to little more than a temper tantrum.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not sure why you're so convinced that the people on the other side of this argument are the ones who need to refute points or defend their argument. They've posted several published reports showing that it costs considerably more to try/convict/appeal/execute a death row case than it does to keep someone incarcerated for life. For years and years there have been studies done that consistently show this to be the case.

You're the one with your fingers in your ears screaming "la la la" because you don't like what the studies show. The burden of proof lies with you. The responsibility to refute specific points is yours. Go ahead and look for reputable studies confirming your su ion that life imprisonment is the costlier option, if you really give a damn, and kindly share them with us. Until then your argument amounts to little more than a temper tantrum.

#1 your studies all include the cost to keep them incarcerated until their execution as a "cost". That is bull and you know it. Your alternative is life in prison, so we would have incurred the cost of maximum security incarceration anyway, just for a lot more years.

It's zero sum when comparing the time spent before their execution.

So, lets define the additional expenses.

1) The cost of a lengthy capital trial instead of letting them plead guilty to get life in prison.

OK, I'll concede to you that a one month capital trial can be extremely expensive.

Now, take away the threat of the needle and how many of those murderers that take a plea to get life (saving the state the cost of a lengthy trial) now realize that they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO LOSE by going to trial. Ultimately your trial cost would be much higher, not lower.

2) Appeal costs? OK...done by staff ADA's that are on salary. Judicial review of the appeal briefs? Judges and clerks are on salary. Wheres your extra cost?

3) The cost to execute them? Really?...totally insignificant compared to feed and house them for the rest of their lives.

If you can think of any other related costs please feel free to chime in.

Hey, if you oppose the death penalty that's fine. There are a lot of excellent arguments to be made against it and both sides have valid points.

My point is that distorting the economic numbers is not a valid argument.

[Drachen]

Who is that quote from or are you not even going to author to source?

[Drachen]

CF his response points to "no" he didn't read the studies

[CosmicCowboy]

Who is that quote from or are you not even going to author to source?

What quote?

[CuckingFunt]

#1 your studies all include the cost to keep them incarcerated until their execution as a "cost". That is bull and you know it. Your alternative is life in prison, so we would have incurred the cost of maximum security incarceration anyway, just for a lot more years.

It's zero sum when comparing the time spent before their execution.

So, lets define the additional expenses.

1) The cost of a lengthy capital trial instead of letting them plead guilty to get life in prison.

OK, I'll concede to you that a one month trial can be expensive.

Now, take away the threat of the needle and how many of those murderers that take a plea to get life (saving the state the cost of a lengthy trial) now realize that they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO LOSE by going to trial. Ultimately your trial cost would be much higher, not lower.

2) Appeal costs? OK...done by staff ADA's that are on salary. Judicial review of the appeal briefs? Judges and clerks are on salary. Wheres your extra cost?

3) The cost to execute them? Really?...totally insignificant compared to feed and house them for the rest of their lives.

If you can think of any other related costs please feel free to chime in.

Hey, if you oppose the death penalty that's fine. There are a lot of excellent arguments to be made against it and both sides have valid points.

My point is that distorting the economic numbers is not a valid argument.

Okay.

And my point is that "those numbers look hinky to me" isn't much of an argument at all. Certainly not one that's going to stand up to the years worth of studies on the other side.

[CosmicCowboy]

Okay.

And my point is that "those numbers look hinky to me" isn't much of an argument at all. Certainly not one that's going to stand up to the years worth of studies on the other side.

I have just as much right to analytically question studies coming out of organizations like antideathpenalty.org, NCADP, .deathpenaltyinfo.org etc. as you would have if I posted some crap study from some right wing pro death nutjob blog.

I welcome you to refute ANY of the points I made about those hinky numbers.

[RichardLaymer]

CF, laying down the smack...the funkster...
CC, posting like he's on crack....
The CC....the richer....the cowster...getting phwned...

[CuckingFunt]

I have just as much right to analytically question studies coming out of organizations like antideathpenalty.org, NCADP, .deathpenaltyinfo.org etc. as you would have if I posted some crap study from some right wing pro death nutjob blog.

I welcome you to refute ANY of the points I made about those hinky numbers.

You haven't made any points, though. Not really.

The studies have shown that it costs more to execute a criminal than to incarcerate them for life, and one of your "points," verbatim, was:

3) The cost to execute them? Really?...totally insignificant compared to feed and house them for the rest of their lives.

That doesn't really give me, or anyone else, anything to refute. It's the rhetorical equivalent to "nuh uh."

Incidentally, if you were able to link me to a study from "some right wing pro death nutjob blog" that showed it was more expensive to hold a prisoner for life than to execute him, I'd gladly consider it critically and comment on its merit or lack thereof. My guess is you wouldn't be able to find those figures even if you looked. From a financial point of view, the deck has been pretty stacked against execution for decades, and as a result most organizations that support the death penalty (that I know of, and I don't claim complete/universal knowledge on the subject) tend to make their argument by obfuscating and/or distracting from those figures, rather than refuting them.

[CosmicCowboy]

The ONLY rational economic argument against the death penalty is the cost of the extended capital trial and the cost of appeals.

My point is, you take the carrot/stick bargaining position away from the DA's and you will have MORE lengthy trials, not fewer.

Lets say Blue gangbanger kills 2 Red gangbangers. They have eye witnesses, they have the gun, it's pretty much a slam dunk case.

However, it's really not a high profile case.

The ADA goes to the defense counsel and says...hey...we've got a winner here but the don't really want to waste a month on this case. We will take the Death Penalty off the table if your client goes ahead and pleads guilty we will give him life. He will be out in 35 years. If he goes to trial we are going for the needle.

That's a pretty persuasive argument and 9 times out of 10 they are gonna plea.

Now, take the death penalty off the table, same scenario.


The ADA goes to the defense counsel and says...hey...we've got a winner here but the don't really want to waste a month on this case. We will take the life off the table if your client goes ahead and pleads guilty we will knock 10 years off. He will be out in 30 years instead of the 35 years he would get if we find him guilty at trial.

going to extended trial is suddenly almost risk free. If you think our court systems are clogged now, just wait.

[CosmicCowboy]

You haven't made any points, though. Not really.

The studies have shown that it costs more to execute a criminal than to incarcerate them for life, and one of your "points," verbatim, was:

3) The cost to execute them? Really?...totally insignificant compared to feed and house them for the rest of their lives.

That doesn't really give me, or anyone else, anything to refute. It's the rhetorical equivalent to "nuh uh."

Incidentally, if you were able to link me to a study from "some right wing pro death nutjob blog" that showed it was more expensive to hold a prisoner for life than to execute him, I'd gladly consider it critically and comment on its merit or lack thereof. My guess is you wouldn't be able to find those figures even if you looked. From a financial point of view, the deck has been pretty stacked against execution for decades, and as a result most organizations that support the death penalty (that I know of, and I don't claim complete/universal knowledge on the subject) tend to make their argument by obfuscating and/or distracting from those figures, rather than refuting them.

Why won't you address any of the points I made? The ONLY additional expense is the cost of an extended trial and the appeals. Every single person involved in the process from the court reporter, to the ADA, the DA staff, the judges, etc. are ALL salaried and the cost of courtrooms etc. are already fixed.

Why don't you view the "studies" with as critical an eye as you view my post?

[CuckingFunt]

The ONLY rational economic argument against the death penalty is the cost of the extended capital trial and the cost of appeals.

My point is, you take the carrot/stick bargaining position away from the DA's and you will have MORE lengthy trials, not fewer.

Lets say Blue gangbanger kills 2 Red gangbangers. They have eye witnesses, they have the gun, it's pretty much a slam dunk case.

However, it's really not a high profile case.

The ADA goes to the defense counsel and says...hey...we've got a winner here but the don't really want to waste a month on this case. We will take the Death Penalty off the table if your client goes ahead and pleads guilty we will give him life. He will be out in 35 years. If he goes to trial we are going for the needle.

That's a pretty persuasive argument and 9 times out of 10 they are gonna plea.

Now, take the death penalty off the table, same scenario.


The ADA goes to the defense counsel and says...hey...we've got a winner here but the don't really want to waste a month on this case. We will take the life off the table if your client goes ahead and pleads guilty we will knock 10 years off. He will be out in 30 years instead of the 35 years he would get if we find him guilty at trial.

going to extended trial is suddenly almost risk free. If you think our court systems are clogged now, just wait.

Entirely speculative, of course. To the point of being as impossible to confirm as to refute.

Again, my point isn't that you're not en led to your opinion here. Or that you're not en led to question the (numerous) studies that exist on the subject. Or even that some of the questions you have may not actually be valid. My only point has ever been that you seem determined to have people take your argument seriously when in fact you haven't really said much of anything. You've said a lot of stuff might happen. And, sure, it might. But that's not really much to go on.

[CuckingFunt]

Why won't you address any of the points I made? The ONLY additional expense is the cost of an extended trial and the appeals. Every single person involved in the process from the court reporter, to the ADA, the DA staff, the judges, etc. are ALL salaried and the cost of courtrooms etc. are already fixed.

Why don't you view the "studies" with as critical an eye as you view my post?

I have viewed them critically. I just happen not to have the same problems with them that you seem to.

I've also looked critically at the fact that there don't seem to be any studies conducted anywhere with any bias that confirm your thoughts that life imprisonment would be more expensive than execution. You can't possibly be the first person to have asked these questions.

Ultimately, the financial implications barely even register in my list of reasons to oppose the death penalty. Human rights issues and the possibility of wrongful imprisonment take care of that for me all on their own. I've got absolutely nothing invested in being proven correct, or in those studies being infallible.

[CosmicCowboy]

Speculative???? LOL

Even dumbass gangbangers are smart enough to evaluate risk/reward in that scenario. Give em some credit for having finely tuned survival instincts.

But hey, you are right, it's speculative since we still have the death penalty and all the ant-death penalty folks will keep putting out their bull reports quoting each other and yelling down the opposition.

All the crap troll responses today was a good example.

Thanks for having a rational discussion even if we disagree. Thats OK.

Meanwhile, got places to go and things to do.

Have a great weekend.

[CosmicCowboy]

I have viewed them critically. I just happen not to have the same problems with them that you seem to.

I've also looked critically at the fact that there don't seem to be any studies conducted anywhere with any bias that confirm your thoughts that life imprisonment would be more expensive than execution. You can't possibly be the first person to have asked these questions.

Ultimately, the financial implications barely even register in my list of reasons to oppose the death penalty. Human rights issues and the possibility of wrongful imprisonment take care of that for me all on their own. I've got absolutely nothing invested in being proven correct, or in those studies being infallible.

Yeah, like I said previously there are plenty of good anti-death penalty arguments, I just don't consider "cost" to be one of them.

Have a great weekend.

[CuckingFunt]

Speculative???? LOL

(When you assume a particular result, that's kind of the definition of speculation. Just sayin'.)

[hehateme]

lets get back to the topic at hand...does the damn woman/man deserve that cheeseburger? no..just like swords said give em a cold ass hard hot pocket, juice box and a ing peace sign.

[Drachen]

Why won't you address any of the points I made? The ONLY additional expense is the cost of an extended trial and the appeals. Every single person involved in the process from the court reporter, to the ADA, the DA staff, the judges, etc. are ALL salaried and the cost of courtrooms etc. are already fixed.

Why don't you view the "studies" with as critical an eye as you view my post?

I will address the points you made.

Yes it does cost more to house a death row inmate than it does a lifer therefore that cost !=.

The only source of extra cost is not in added appeals process. There is a far greater up front cost.

You are welcome

[CosmicCowboy]

I will address the points you made.

Yes it does cost more to house a death row inmate than it does a lifer therefore that cost !=.


I call bull unless you can actually substantiate your claim.

Same number of days LWOP in Maximum Security Solitary = DR in Maximum Security Solitary.

The only source of extra cost is not in added appeals process. There is a far greater up front cost.

No Sherlock. I acknowledged that and fully addressed it.

Go google some more talking points dumbass.

[Drachen]

Actually, I have already posted a source for my claims (a conservative one at that) which, itself, has several sources. You are the one using personal conjecture along with a dash of anecdotal story telling to try and support your assertions. It shows too since you can't help but continually retreat to that refuge of the ignorant, name calling. I am not Manny, you cannot put me on tilt. I guess you may carry on with that strategy if it makes you feel better but I just felt inclined to let you know that you will get nowhere with it.

[DMC]

The problem is it's too expensive to kill someone. Make it cheaper. A .22 round to the base of the skull should do it. Do it right after the sentencing, plastic on the floor Goodfellas style.

It's not about saving money. It's about killing parasites and vermin.

Next time some of you find an infestation in your home, just round the critters up and put them in a cage, a tank, something, and feed them for the rest of their lives. Probably cheaper than an exterminator.

[Drachen]

actually, from what I read the drugs themselves (at least the ones texas uses) only cost about $83.

[DMC]

actually, from what I read the drugs themselves (at least the ones texas uses) only cost about $83.

The reason the process is so expensive is because people oppose it in the first place. How many appeals and years in a cell does a confessed killer need?

I would have served him his meal, but it would be on the tailgate of a truck he was being dragged behind. Catch up, er, and you can eat... whoops.. a culvert.