|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 5, 2010 19:34:51 GMT -5
no lives were saved by the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war was well in hand to being an Alied victory by that time .... the dropping of those bombs was nothing more than the Americans need to flex their might to respond to the bombing of Pearl Harbour. That’s one opinion, for sure. There’s another school of thought that says the FDR administration knew about the planned attack and did nothing about it....knowing full well that such an attack would get the U.S. public on board...and thus the military-industrial complex in full $wing. In the Pearl Harbor scenario, weren’t all the useful ships out to sea...while just the ones needing maintenance were in harbor? I've heard that slant. Smacks of conspiracy....but what doesn't when it comes to war? And by posting this comment I’m not saying in any way, shape, or form that the U.S. wasn’t instrumental or direly needed in defeating the Axis forces. Just reporting what I’ve read over the years. We'll likely never know the truth....of anything of such circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2010 8:02:43 GMT -5
no lives were saved by the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war was well in hand to being an Alied victory by that time .... the dropping of those bombs was nothing more than the Americans need to flex their might to respond to the bombing of Pearl Harbour. That’s one opinion, for sure. There’s another school of thought that says the FDR administration knew about the planned attack and did nothing about it....knowing full well that such an attack would get the U.S. public on board...and thus the military-industrial complex in full $wing. In the Pearl Harbor scenario, weren’t all the useful ships out to sea...while just the ones needing maintenance were in harbor? I've heard that slant. Smacks of conspiracy....but what doesn't when it comes to war? And by posting this comment I’m not saying in any way, shape, or form that the U.S. wasn’t instrumental or direly needed in defeating the Axis forces. Just reporting what I’ve read over the years. We'll likely never know the truth....of anything of such circumstances. I'm not sure how that differs from what I posted CH ... even if FDR knew about the Pearl Harbour attacks the bombing of the Japanese cities was an American response to show the world they split the atom, and used Pearl Harbour as the excuse to drop those bombs. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Dec 6, 2010 10:07:08 GMT -5
I don't think there should be one, because the minute you find out you've killed an innocent person it's too late. If we had the death penalty people like Donald Marshall Jr, or David Milgaard might have been put to death before finding out they were actually innocent of the crimes they were convicted of.
As much as there are people we'd definitely 'be better off without' I'm not inclined to go down that slope.
Here in the Halifax area, things have been more violent than usual in the last couple of years. I'm more inclined to round up people 'known to police' (as their referred to), put them in a common holding cell together on a trumped up charge, and see who survives. Considering we can't seem to hire honest guards for our jails, it shouldn't be a problem setting something like this up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2010 11:38:05 GMT -5
There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin ..... so I'll leave it, but willpoint out that no lives were saved by the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war was well in hand to being an Alied victory by that time .... the dropping of those bombs was nothing more than the Americans need to flex their might to respond to the bombing of Pearl Harbour. I'll try to refine it to a single point. Does it make sense for sick people to have to go without medicine, students go books, potholes to go unfilled and babies go without food while million$ of dollars are spent caring for the most evil murderers, feeding them, giving them medical treatment and leagal council? Let's use California as an example. In California, wait times for execution are, on average, about 20 years. It costs the state of California, about $90,000 more per year, (in 2008 dollars, so about $100,000 today) to house a death row inmate than other inmates. That money buys alot of books, medicine, and potholes. Source There are two arguements most people use to favour of the death penalty. 1) CostAs I have shown above, the cost of housing a death row inmate in California is more than other inmates. But that isn't the only cost. The trial costs are more too ... I've read that in California the prosecution has used the high cost of trials as a reason to not seek the death penalty in some cases (I have no idea if it is true). I did a google search and found a "source" but it was just an opinion on a yahoo anwers site. It provided a starting point for my own research. Specific cases (California.) People v. Scott Peterson, Death Penalty Trial $3.2 Million Total People v. Rex Allen Krebs Death Penalty Trial $2.8 Million Total People v. Cary Stayner, Death Penalty Trial $2.368 Million Total People v. Robert Wigley, Non-Death Penalty Trial $454,000 Total I had no way of verifying these numbers, but I did find the following on another website. There is currently no comprehensive system for tracking the costs of death penalty trials. Attorneys and the courts are generally not required to disclose costs, except a small number of cases where thethe state reimbursed the costs of the trials.
In The Hidden Death Tax, the ACLU-NC requested and reviewed state records of trials funded through this program, and arrived at some key findings:
The difference between the least expensive death penalty trial and most expensive non-death penalty murder trial was $1.1 million. The death penalty trial of People v. Suarez cost $1.8 million, and the non-death penalty trial of People v. Franklin cost $661,000.
One death penalty trial -- People v. Charles Chitat Ng -- cost $10.9 million, Several other death penalty trials also cost multiple millions of dollars.
and also Death penalty trials cost an estimated $1.1 million more than a trial where the District Attorney seeks a sentence of permanent imprisonment. Unlike post-conviction costs funded by the state budget, trial expenses are borne largely from county budgets.
Housing on death row costs at least$90,000 more per inmate per year than housing in the general prison population, where those sentenced to permanent imprisonment are housed.
Funding for post-conviction prosecution and defense attorneys costs $85,000 per death row inmate per year. Inmates sentenced to permanent imprisonment are not afforded mandatory appeals.
As of 2009, California taxpayers spend an estimated $117 million each year at the post-conviction level seeking the execution of the 680 inmates on death row.
Death penalty trials cost local taxpayers an additional $20 million per year, at the current death sentencing rate of 20 sentences per year.
In total, the death penalty system cost California taxpayers $137 million each year, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice found, whereas permanent imprisonment for all those currently on death row would cost just $11 million.
On top of all of that, we need to spend $400 million to construct a new facility to house death row inmates, because the current facility is too old and overcrowded. If every person on death row were condemned to permanent imprisonment instead, we would avoid this expense. I'm not sure why this is .. I would assume a new prison would have to be built regardless if over crowding is a problem
Source 2So if it is costs .... then wouldn't you want the State to spend 11 million on inmates a year as opposed to $137 million? 2) DeterrentAs I showed in an above pervious post, there is no evidence to suggest that the death penalty is a deterrent in the States ... most of the states that do not have a death penalty have the lowest murder rates in the United States. But what about Canada? In the mid 1970's Canada had the death penalty and the murder rate was 3.0 murders per 100,000 people. So our murder rate must be higher in 2010, right? I mean we abolished the death penalty in the late 1970's ... and yet today the Canadian annual murder rate is 1.8 murder per 100,000 people and has been declining every year for the past decade. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2010 11:47:38 GMT -5
Other factors influencing cost of death penalty trials .... again from a yahoo site (so take it for what its worth, but it seems reasonable to me)
Some of the factors:
• more pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial
• more pre-trial motions will be filed and answered
• more experts will be hired
• twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution
• jurors will have to be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered
• two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment
• the trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer
The numbers vary from state to state, but they all point in the same direction. From a fairly typical state study of the costs of the death penalty:
“The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases. The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).”
(Kansas: Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections)
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 6, 2010 11:58:00 GMT -5
no lives were saved by the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war was well in hand to being an Alied victory by that time .... the dropping of those bombs was nothing more than the Americans need to flex their might to respond to the bombing of Pearl Harbour. I remember watching a documentary on MacAurthur (narrarated by the Late John Huston) and I believe MacAurthur predicted a million American casulaties if the USA had to actually invade Japan, and from what I understand that was the eventual plan if necessary. The Late William Manchester, an editor, professor and historian, is interviewed throughout the series (I think he did MacAurthur's biography). He remembers the reaction he and his fellow Marines had when it was learned that America had The Bomb. He said everyone started hugging each other, weeping and the like because they knew they were going to survive the war by not attacking Japan. I think this is where the USA may have saved lives, certainly at the cost of other lives, though. It's really not a fair trade off regardless who's telling the story; American or Japanese. Still, in keeping with the thread. Let's say for squats and giggles that the US lost their war in the Pacific, even though they still managed to drop the bombs. Would we have seen US officials up on 'crimes against humanity' charges. I mean, the bomb is a brutal, disgusting misuse of technology designed and built for one use only; to irradicate life. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 6, 2010 12:59:45 GMT -5
Has an inmate in a maximum security prison, serving a life sentence for murder, ever escaped a Canadian jail? Kingston has had 26 escapes, although only 1 since 1958 (in 1999 a bank robber named Tyn Conn went over the wall). I can't find anything else about any other facilities right now, but I would imagine that if Mr. Conn (who had a history of escape) was able to escape from Kingston (considered to be the most secure facility in Canada) then your average run of the mill murderer could also do it at another high security site. Not a Bernardo or an Olsen mind you - they are probably more closely monitored due to their notoriety, but not everyone is quite as notorious as that. This is correct. He escaped from Kingston Pen in '99. He was tracked down in Toronto two weeks later and committed suicide rather than turning himself in. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ty_ConnIt's important to note as well that there are several pens in and around the Kingston area. Again, from Wikipedia. - Kingston Penitentiary (maximum security)
- Regional Treatment Centre (multi-level security), co-located within Kingston Penitentiary
- Joyceville Institution (medium security)
- Pittsburgh Institution (minimum security), co-located with Joyceville
- Collins Bay Institution (medium security)
- Frontenac Institution (minimum security), co-located with Collins Bay
- Isabel McNeil House (minimum security), transitional facility for women inmates
- Millhaven Institution (maximum security), located in the village of Bath
- Bath Institution (medium security), located in the village of Bath
- Quinte Regional Detention Cenre, (maximum security), located in Napanee
I haven't researched all of them, but several of these institutions have their own escape records. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 6, 2010 13:24:58 GMT -5
if anyone deserves it . . . VANCOUVER — One of Canada’s most heinous and prolific serial killers, Michael Wayne McGray warned he could murder again, even while in prison.
“Just because I’m locked up in segregation doesn’t mean I can’t kill somebody,” he told the National Post’s Graeme Hamilton a decade ago, while sitting inside a federal penitentiary in Renous, N.B. “I have a chance every day.”
Killing, he went on, is “almost a hunger. It’s something I need. I have to have that physical release. When I kill, it’s a big high for me.” The years passed. Convicted of six murders, McGray was moved from prison to prison. Last year he wound up in B.C. He was most recently moved to a medium-security institution, of all places.
And one morning last week, McGray’s new cellmate was found dead.
The RCMP have confirmed that Jeremy Phillips, 33, was murdered. His body was discovered inside the medium-security cell he shared with McGray in Agassiz, B.C. The same cell in which the pair had been locked up the previous night. moreThis kind of reminds me of the character James Whitmore portrayed in "The Shawshank Redemption." Brooks Hatlen was described as being "institutionalized" by his fellow inmate, "Red." You have to wonder whether McGray might be masking another fear: "... please don't release me. I know I simply won't be able to function socially outside these walls ... and if you do I'll ..." Hard to say, but perhaps there are a few inmates who really feel this way. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 6, 2010 19:08:56 GMT -5
Other factors influencing cost of death penalty trials .... again from a yahoo site (so take it for what its worth, but it seems reasonable to me) Some of the factors:
• more pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial
• more pre-trial motions will be filed and answered
• more experts will be hired
• twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution
• jurors will have to be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered
• two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment
• the trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer
The numbers vary from state to state, but they all point in the same direction. From a fairly typical state study of the costs of the death penalty:
“The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases. The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).”
(Kansas: Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections)
I certainly don't disagree that we spend far too much on death penalty cases and appeals. I don't disagree that the process takes too long. Rather than eliminate the death penalty to save money, I suggest speeding it up and reducing the costs. Don't waste any more on those useless SOB's than absolutely necessary. Take the money saved and spend it on scolarships for college students or a kidney transplant for dying patient on the list. I'd even use the money for a fireworks display after each execution but it would be hard to garner the support needed for that. I don't favour indiscriminate killing for sport, but I have no sympathy for the killers and torturers of young girls, children, the elderly and doctors at abortion clinics. Even the presidents of oil companies don't deserve to be killed. How much do we have to spend to know that Saddam Hussein is guilty? A show trial isn't necessary just to prove we are objective. Fry the ba$tards and move on. Mistakes may be made. We are human and humans make mistakes. That doesn't stop us from being proactive. Mistakes are part of the cost of doing business. Keep the number of mistakes low. The court system, admissable vs nonadmissable evidence, tainted blood samples, police mistakes, forensic delays. OJ is guilty! Fry him. Nobody remembers who was shot where by the which of the guys in Guantanimo, the soldiers have moved on and don't remember who was captured on what day 7 years ago. Fry them all. If my attitude is too extreme, just take the obvious killers on death row as a start. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2010 20:58:22 GMT -5
I certainly don't disagree that we spend far too much on death penalty cases and appeals. I don't disagree that the process takes too long. Rather than eliminate the death penalty to save money, I suggest speeding it up and reducing the costs. Don't waste any more on those useless SOB's than absolutely necessary. Take the money saved and spend it on scolarships for college students or a kidney transplant for dying patient on the list. I'd even use the money for a fireworks display after each execution but it would be hard to garner the support needed for that. I don't favour indiscriminate killing for sport, but I have no sympathy for the killers and torturers of young girls, children, the elderly and doctors at abortion clinics. Even the presidents of oil companies don't deserve to be killed. How much do we have to spend to know that Saddam Hussein is guilty? A show trial isn't necessary just to prove we are objective. Fry the ba$tards and move on. Mistakes may be made. We are human and humans make mistakes. That doesn't stop us from being proactive. Mistakes are part of the cost of doing business. Keep the number of mistakes low. The court system, admissable vs nonadmissable evidence, tainted blood samples, police mistakes, forensic delays. OJ is guilty! Fry him. Nobody remembers who was shot where by the which of the guys in Guantanimo, the soldiers have moved on and don't remember who was captured on what day 7 years ago. Fry them all. If my attitude is too extreme, just take the obvious killers on death row as a start. Did you read my link? Speeding up the process INCREASES the cost exponentially. Why? Because better lawyers will be required to make sure everything is above board, so that the appeals process is avoided, and reduce the risk of putting an innocent man to death. No matter how you slice it ... fast or slow ... it costs MORE to put someone to death than to give them a life in prison without parole. Any effort to "speed up" executions will only cost more money. It is true that a person sentenced to execution is much more likely to die of illness or old age than they are to be executed. 64 people have died on death row awaiting executions since 1978, while only 13 have actually been executed; the average wait on death row is over 20 years.
The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice found that the only way to make the death penalty system operate more efficiently is to provide more funding for competent defense and prosecution counsel and for the courts. The Commission’s proposal to do so would cost the state an additional $95 million per year, above and beyond the $137 million we currently spend on the system. Therefore, any reforms to ensure death penalty cases move quicker through the system would require more money, and would not save the state a dime. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 7, 2010 17:28:05 GMT -5
I certainly don't disagree that we spend far too much on death penalty cases and appeals. I don't disagree that the process takes too long. Rather than eliminate the death penalty to save money, I suggest speeding it up and reducing the costs. Don't waste any more on those useless SOB's than absolutely necessary. Take the money saved and spend it on scolarships for college students or a kidney transplant for dying patient on the list. I'd even use the money for a fireworks display after each execution but it would be hard to garner the support needed for that. I don't favour indiscriminate killing for sport, but I have no sympathy for the killers and torturers of young girls, children, the elderly and doctors at abortion clinics. Even the presidents of oil companies don't deserve to be killed. How much do we have to spend to know that Saddam Hussein is guilty? A show trial isn't necessary just to prove we are objective. Fry the ba$tards and move on. Mistakes may be made. We are human and humans make mistakes. That doesn't stop us from being proactive. Mistakes are part of the cost of doing business. Keep the number of mistakes low. The court system, admissable vs nonadmissable evidence, tainted blood samples, police mistakes, forensic delays. OJ is guilty! Fry him. Nobody remembers who was shot where by the which of the guys in Guantanimo, the soldiers have moved on and don't remember who was captured on what day 7 years ago. Fry them all. If my attitude is too extreme, just take the obvious killers on death row as a start. Did you read my link? Speeding up the process INCREASES the cost exponentially. Why? Because better lawyers will be required to make sure everything is above board, so that the appeals process is avoided, and reduce the risk of putting an innocent man to death. No matter how you slice it ... fast or slow ... it costs MORE to put someone to death than to give them a life in prison without parole. Any effort to "speed up" executions will only cost more money. It is true that a person sentenced to execution is much more likely to die of illness or old age than they are to be executed. 64 people have died on death row awaiting executions since 1978, while only 13 have actually been executed; the average wait on death row is over 20 years.
The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice found that the only way to make the death penalty system operate more efficiently is to provide more funding for competent defense and prosecution counsel and for the courts. The Commission’s proposal to do so would cost the state an additional $95 million per year, above and beyond the $137 million we currently spend on the system. Therefore, any reforms to ensure death penalty cases move quicker through the system would require more money, and would not save the state a dime.Canada follows the British tradition of laws while Quebec is based on the Napoleonic code. A component of the Napoleonic code could be employed everywhere at a huge savings in cost and time: 1. Install a guillotine 2. Insert obvious killers. 3. If the machine malfunctions, let him go, if not send him to purgitory where his fate will be decided Oh; you are being serious? On a serious note, endless trials taking years with expensive lawyers interpreting codes and witnesses either dead or trying to remember incidents fron 15 years ago do nothing to further justice. Expedient is more important than following endless processes that change nothing but the pockets of the lawyers. Temporary insanity is no excuse any more than a drunk driver saying he is innocent because he was temporarily drunk at the time. Get over it and move on to help the good people. This isn't a personal rant against anyones serious opinion; it's just my opinion that when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! No need for a long trial and examination of feathers. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 8, 2010 0:03:12 GMT -5
Short answer to the original question: No, because you can never be sure.
Or rather, there are exceedingly few cases where you can be sure, and once you open pandora's box, the "pretty cut and dried" ones will wind up there too, and then it's a slippery slope. Prison forever, which also means that if someone else confesses or is caught, it's possible to turn back the clock to a certain extent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 28, 2011 11:48:25 GMT -5
Interesting ... ============================================================ Death penalty up worldwide: Amnesty International
Resurgence in number of countries executing convicts in 2010 after record low
The Associated Press Posted: Mar 28, 2011 10:23 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 28, 2011 11:34 AM ETAmnesty International says the number of countries executing convicts rose to 23 in 2010. That's four more countries than in 2009, which saw the lowest number of countries impose the death penalty since the 50-year-old organization began keeping statistics. Still the London-based rights group said in a report published Monday that the number of countries without the death penalty has more than doubled over the past two decades. Amnesty says momentum is still with those who are seeking to outlaw the practice. The rights group, established in 1961, believes that the death penalty is a cruel and degrading form of punishment. www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/28/amnesty-intl-executions748.html (CBC) www.amnesty.ca/media2010.php?DocID=431 (Amnesty International) |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 28, 2011 13:22:17 GMT -5
It's four more countries than the previous year ... but pretty consistent with the trend over the last decade or more. I'd like to see a list of those 23 countries .... then the list of countries in 2009 and 2008. ONe factor could be there are new countries sprouting up all the time. Case in point. The Dutch Antilles split into two countries in 2010. I'm just wondering if some "new" country sprouting up is the reason for the increase ... or was it just simply that some countries that have the death penalty just didn't have any carried out during 2010?  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 28, 2011 16:41:36 GMT -5
Short answer to the original question: No, because you can never be sure. Or rather, there are exceedingly few cases where you can be sure, and once you open pandora's box, the "pretty cut and dried" ones will wind up there too, and then it's a slippery slope. Prison forever, which also means that if someone else confesses or is caught, it's possible to turn back the clock to a certain extent. Wrong thread maybe but do you think Harper would entertain this? Cheers. |
|
