In December 2008 the Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment made the recommendation to abolish capital punishment in the state of Maryland. In the commission report it gives several reasons behind the Commission’s decision. One reason is the commission found substantial disparities based on race and jurisdiction, these disparities a very great among similar cases that makes the process arbitrary. Another reason is the cost, a capital punishment case cost far more than one where the capital punishment is not sought and it is thought that the resources could be better spent somewhere else. It is also said that capital punishment just prolongs the victims family. One last reason that is extremely important is the risk of executing an innocent person, and this is known to happen before. All of these reasons seem to be very acceptable in backing up the decision to abolish capital punishment in Maryland. Is legally killing someone really morally justified by the law? Which is a harsher punishment in reality being killed or living out the rest of your life in a prison cell where you have to think about what you did each and every moment of the day? To kill or not to kill, that is the question...
To Kill or Not to Kill
By bleedingheart - Posted on March 19th, 2009
bleedingheart's blog
• Login or register to add your review
• 229 reads
• by bleedingheart
• Email this page
Is legally killing someone really morally justified by the law?
Killing any animal, in my opinion, is never morally justified except in cases of legitimate self-defense. Should we kill Muslim Terrorists? Hell yeah. Should we kill somebody who has just broken into our house with intent to harm our family or property? Hell yeah. As for whether we should be executing people for horrendous crimes against humanity? The answer is complicated. I don't think anybody has room to speak against capital punishment for ruthless killers unless they had a loved one who was a victim of a horrendous crime. If somebody brutally raped and killed somebody I love I'd want to kill the person myself. You are right about the expense of the death penalty being a good argument for abolishing it. I think the death penalty system needs to be overhauled or scrapped altogether. I would be in favor of overhauling it, rather than abolishing it, even though it goes against my morals. The number of appeals allowed should be drastically reduced and a good start would be to absolutely forbid federal courts from interfering in state criminal cases - no matter what. It's nonsensical to allow death penalty appeals to end up in federal court after the convict exhausts all or most of his/her state court appeals. The number of state court appeals allowed should be trimmed to immediate appeals which, in most states, would give the condemned two appeals - one in the intermediate appeals court and one in the state high court (called Supreme Court in most states).
Which is a harsher punishment in reality being killed or living out the rest of your life in a prison cell where you have to think about what you did each and every moment of the day?
That mindset is only valid if the perpetrator has, or is even capable of having, any remorse over what they've done. Unfortunately, many people who carry out "heinous crimes" don't have any real remorse, so making them sit in jail probably won't do much good.
Personally, I don't think capital punishment should be abolished, though I do think it shouldn't be used quite as much as it is currently in many places. I think capital punishment should be saved for things like serial killers and those who tortured their victim(s) before killing. For these people, it's pretty clear that making them "think about what they've done" isn't going to happen, and even if it is, they have gone way past the point of having that opportunity.
Another reason is the cost, a capital punishment case cost far more than one where the capital punishment is not sought and it is thought that the resources could be better spent somewhere else.
Do you have a source for that? It would seem to me that capital punishment would be less expensive in the long run than spending the next 40 years paying for the resources to keep a person locked up and guarded. I could be wrong, though.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
They were referring to the cost of the trail. http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/capital-punishment/documents/death-penalty...
Please use the reply button, it helps maintain the flow of conversation.
That said, I took a look at your source and found this:
·
$1.1 million to prosecute a capital-eligible case in which the death penalty is not sought, which includes $870,000 in life imprisonment costs and $250,000 in
adjudication costs;
·
$1.8 million to prosecute a capital-eligible case in which prosecutors unsuccessfully sought the death penalty, which includes $950,000 in prison costs and $850,000 in adjudication costs; and
·
$3 million to prosecute a capital-eligible case resulting in a death penalty, which includes $1.3 million in prison costs and $1.7 million in adjudication costs.
For those that don't know what adjudication is (and I had to look it up, myself), Wikipedia has a good explanation of it:
Adjudication is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved. Three types of disputes are resolved through adjudication:
1. Disputes between private parties, such as individuals or corporations.
2. Disputes between private parties and public officials.
3. Disputes between public officials or public bodies.
Now, I'm no lawyer, so if anyone is and could provide some insight, that'd be awesome, but there seems to be some discrepancy between the adjudication costs of a the three types of cases. Why is it that those costs are a fraction of the costs of the others? From the information in the PDF, it seems to me that a lot of the cost is in paying for attorneys, the judge, and jurors. However, that still seems like a very large difference.
The main concern with this that it raises with me is this -- is there a more efficient/better way to run all trials? It seems to me that it costs less because the prosecution isn't under as much pressure to make sure the person is guilty because they could always reverse the sentence. If that is the case, then I think many people overlook the effect being in prison has on someone.
Assume the person is innocent, but he's found guilty. He goes to prison and, say, in twenty years, he's found innocent and is released. However, time didn't not stop while he was in, and since he was sentenced to life without parole, there was no plan for him to be released, so he had no reason to keep up on skills. Now, he's released and can't get a job because he spent the past 20 years in prison, has no recent experience, and has no current skills. If he does manage to find a job, he'll be hard-pressed to be able to retire at a reasonable age, because even if he was, say 20 when he was convicted, that means he's 40 when released (and that's assuming he gets said job immediately, and doesn't go to some sort of school for any length of time).
The second concern I have with the statistics are the "life imprisonment costs" and "prison costs." Now, it's pretty evident that they're not referring to the same thing, since the exact same thing doesn't apply here, but it would be nice to see a breakdown of those costs so we know we're actually comparing apples to apples.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge