Should we not consider cost? Who in their right mind would disagree?

Iread somewhere recently that some jurisdiction had started giving judges cost estimates of various punishments. Apparently, there was a big jump in probation as a result. Seemed like a pretty reasonable idea. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Missouri

http://www.newser.com/story/100918/m...entencing.html



– We all know the punishment should fit the crime, but what if the punishment costs too much? Along with sentencing guidelines and legal statutes, Missouri judges now have state-supplied information on the bottom line of what various sentencing scenarios will cost. They'd know, for instance, that a three-year sentence for child endangerment would cost $37,000, whereas probation would cost less than $7000

The most ridiculous cost comes from the death penalty. Perhaps we should take a page from the Russian or Chinese book. For those whose guilt is beyond question, a trip to a room with a drain in the floor and a high caliber pistol shot to the back of the head. Then send the bill for the round to the family.
You may not like the death penalty, but this is not about that. The dp is reality. This is about the cost and the efficiency of carrying out the sentence.

The most ridiculous cost comes from the death penalty. Perhaps we should take a page from the Russian or Chinese book. For those whose guilt is beyond question, a trip to a room with a drain in the floor and a high caliber pistol shot to the back of the head. Then send the bill for the round to the family.
You may not like the death penalty, but this is not about that. The dp is reality. This is about the cost and the efficiency of carrying out the sentence. Originally Posted by John Bull

I am not aganist the death penalty. It should be swift and just or as some of us like to say, "Just swift!".

The problem you fail to mention though, is that you are giving that dreaded thing you despise so, all this power. Government. Are you ok with that?

In terms of justice, I'm a big fan of the death penalty.

However, in practice I oppose it. Why? Because I do not trust our government enough anymore to believe such power will not be misused to harm the innocent.

Cost is an important factor; but efficacy in terms of recidivism should also be considered. Looking at costs alone may be penny wise and pound foolish.

...
You may not like the death penalty, but this is not about that. The dp is reality. This is about the cost and the efficiency of carrying out the sentence. Originally Posted by John Bull

...The problem you fail to mention though, is that you are giving that dreaded thing you despise so, all this power. Government. Are you ok with that? Originally Posted by WTF

I refer back to another phrase in my original post - "For those whose guilt is beyond question".
You are correct about my loathing of govt power which infringes on the Constitution but this is the power of the Court system and the cases which are without refutation or technicality. Where all who know the case are sure not beyond reasonable doubt, but sure with certainty. We all know of such cases within our home areas.

I am against the death penalty. The system (any system) cannot be trusted to be as accurate as JB would want. There are failures in every system. It is better to let many guilty (wo)men go free than to execute on innocent man. Probably not the cost benefit analysis in which the OP was interested.

However, beyond that, I don't believe the DP to be an appropriate penalty in civilized countries. I guess, philosophically and theologically, I think the DP should be left up to a higher power w/o any help from human beings.

John, everyone already on death row was convicted by a jury that found him guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Yet there have been people on death row who have later been exonerated.

While there may theoretically be some case like you claim where there is "guilty beyond question," that is supposedly the standard we already have. The devil is in the details of whose idea of "beyond question." Beyond question to a prosecutor and beyond question to a defense attorney are two different things. Plus, our society has judged that not all murders deserve the death penalty. Who decides if the necessary aggravating factors have been proved "beyond question." As a practical matter, our justice system, despite being the best justice system in the word, it is still imperfect because humans are imperfect. Therefore I do not trust it to impose the ultimate and irreversible punishment.

The best justice system in the world? How can that be when WTF posted what he did? How can a justice system function as it should, on points of law ONLY, when judges are now being asked to consider the costs of punishment? That's crazy!

Sure, the economics and financials of a costly judicial and penal system have to weighed up. But not at the Judges level. At a much higher level than that. It's a disgrace that the level of financial responsibility is being pushed onto the judges. A judge has now has to put a cost on a childs life (using the example WTF gave) and that's the best? I'm sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it's his/her problem to deal with. If this becomes a national trend, then I bet less and less people will step forward for a judgeship. Judges went to law school, not business school for a reason. I would absolutely join them in any campaign to renounce this change. I don't know what the best is, but if that's it, god help us. How about changing the rules on sentencing at a higher level and taking responsibility for the (financial) reasons why? That way the judge is merely executing his powers as instructed by such an ammendment. Beats hiding behind the judge instead.

C

The next generation Judge (old-timers may recognize this):

System 360 or 370?

Here in Connecticut, the jury is going to decide the charges in the coming week, against Steven Hayes, the first of two who terrorized the Petit family. http://www.courant.com/news/nation-w...,7993619.story
While I am generally not a death penalty advocate, this case and the defendants are really a good argument for the death penalty. These two are scum.

That's where I am conflicted. If they are executed, then they will not have to suffer like their victims did. My preference would be for them to remain incarcerated and become the prison's punching bags. Perhaps their fellow inmates' glory hole. But I would want then to suffer horribly for the rest of their miserable lives. Decades of punishment. Medical experiments might be appropriate too. Death is too easy for them.

System 360 or 370? Originally Posted by pjorourke

370

The best justice system in the world? How can that be when WTF posted what he did? How can a justice system function as it should, on points of law ONLY, when judges are now being asked to consider the costs of punishment? That's crazy!

Sure, the economics and financials of a costly judicial and penal system have to weighed up. But not at the Judges level. At a much higher level than that. It's a disgrace that the level of financial responsibility is being pushed onto the judges. A judge has now has to put a cost on a childs life (using the example WTF gave) and that's the best? I'm sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it's his/her problem to deal with. If this becomes a national trend, then I bet less and less people will step forward for a judgeship. Judges went to law school, not business school for a reason. I would absolutely join them in any campaign to renounce this change. I don't know what the best is, but if that's it, god help us. How about changing the rules on sentencing at a higher level and taking responsibility for the (financial) reasons why? That way the judge is merely executing his powers as instructed by such an ammendment. Beats hiding behind the judge instead.

C Originally Posted by Camille

Why shouldn't those assessing punishment think about the cost? They weigh many other factors that are unique to each case. Why not cost?

In a county near me, I had a conversation with the DA recently while waiting for my civil hearing to start. He elected not to prosecute a man for DWI manslaughter because of the extremely high cost of treating the man's many diseases. It would have cost the county a ton of money (over $20k a month) to treat him in jail because he had suffered a stroke since he allegedly committed the offense in question.

If your argument is that only the legislature can make these decisions, and that does seem to be your argument, then that small county (one of Texas' smallest) busts it's jail budget on one guy who can't even drive now. Judges (and for that matter juries) are perfectly competent to take the costs of varying penalties in mind in deciding which criminals deserve harsher punishment, and which should get a shot at probation.

I'm not against the death penalty but I believe it is not an effective deterrent if it takes twenty years to be carried out. Swift justice is better and if swift justice is hard labor or detention in a non comfy environment that would work even better than defacto life sentences on death row. Spending money on a system for quick trials and compensation to working juries (juries with jobs) would be the model our founding fathers were looking for. More judges and courthouses etc. rather than three years to prosecute run of the mill DUIs seems to me a better model.

You are correct about my loathing of govt power which infringes on the Constitution but this is the power of the Court system . Originally Posted by John Bull

What I like about what the ''Show Me'' state is doing is that one at least gets people to start seeing the $$$ we throw at punishment without looking at how much cheaper it is by putting that same $$$ in rehabilitation. Shining a light on that is the first step to approaching these things in a more scientific manner. My God one bad apple on parole that kills someone means we let no one have parole at a huge taxpayer cost. That is like saying cars kill innocent people so we should all walk to where we go. That is ignorant and so has our approach to incarnation.

I personally like what they are doing. I think we should do it in every phase of government. If people realized the cost of things and were made to pay for them out of pocket, this country would be a much different place IMHO.