Inmate executed after 26 years

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Manchu**

curran12 wrote:
Because the death penalty is not, nor has it ever been, about justice. It's about revenge.

Justice and revenge are not incompatible. Retribution is a theory of justice.

**feeder**

oldravenman3025 wrote:
feeder wrote:
oldravenman3025 wrote:
Relapse wrote:
This is another death penalty case I have trouble with. Where is the justice in leaving someone sweating 26 years before finally getting around to executing them? After that long, they should have just switched the penalty to life without parole.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/07/georgia-executes-inmate-for-1990-murder-father-in-law.html

It was because of legal maneuvering, a second trial (with the same verdict and penalty), petitions for clemency, appeals, and general wrangling. That's what usually drags out the time on death row before the sentence is carried out. And that appears to be the case here.

When sentenced to death, you should get one appeal and that's it. However, older cases/convictions from before the advent of modern forensic science/technology, and reliable DNA testing, should be reviewed if there is any question regarding the case. But there is no excuse anymore for dragging it out. Give them an appeal in the interests of due process, and if rejected, swiftly carry out the sentence. It's ridiculous that the taxpayers get shafted when all doubt is removed. Remove all the bullcrap and years of lengthy appeals, and you remove the number one problem with capital punishment in the United States: Exuberant costs.

Don't you have a background corrections? Given the total clusterfeth that the system is in, you really think the "number one problem" is the high cost?

Yes. And it's both my time in corrections and study of correctional issues/policy in college that is a big influence on my thinking.

In addition to court costs and legal costs (some of which comes from the taxpayer in some cases with the latter), it costs more per year to house a death row inmate than an inmate in administrative segregation, general population (all security classifications), long term disciplinary segregation, with special needs (poor health, terminal illness, mentally ill, or disabled), or protective segregation.

Death Row is a world unto itself (I've been to Central's death row wing in Raleigh. It's a lot different than the closed custody and segregation that I worked in. It takes a special breed to work death row long term). There are special security needs and procedures, staff with additional training, a 24-7 extraction team ("Goon Squad") on standby, tighter policy/special SOPs, and death row inmates have special needs because of their high security environment. There are also case managers, counselors, and clergy that are specialized in dealing with death row inmates. Some States, I'm told, even have separate kitchen with heavily vetted trustees for death row. And that's just the half of it.

All of those special security, staffing issues, facilities, needs, etc. cost big bucks and more than the average housing of a non-death row inmate. Add on years of legal eagle stuff , court sessions, paperwork, and appeals, and that cost in the facility housing alone is outrageously high.

I am a firm supporter of capital punishment. But even I think that the current system is cumbersome, overly expensive, and has too much politics involved. Things need to be streamlined and sped up in the present day, especially with the forensics and science we have now used to investigate capital crimes. In my view, having somebody lingering on death row for an excessive period of time constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. But eliminating the death penalty isn't the way to go, in my opinion.

We know that the state will execute innocents by accident, on occasion. Speeding up the process from trail to death will likely exacerbate this issue. It the execution of innocent persons (murder, in other words) an acceptable part of the system in your opinion? If so, what rate of accidental murder by the state is permissible?

**Hordini**

jreilly89 wrote:
Hordini wrote:
curran12 wrote:
Well, since modern capital punishment is purely an exercise in revenge, who cares about that? More spectacle and more revenge stiffies for everyone!

The majority of the US penal system is purely an exercise in revenge. That's part of the reason our recidivism rate is so massive and why we have a bigger prisoner population than either China or Russia. That's not per capita either. We have more prisoners than China, full stop. China has a billion more people than we do.

Are you really suggesting China has a better penal system?

Absolutely not. I am suggesting that our penal system has serious issues and the fact that a country that is known to be oppressive has fewer prisoners than we do, with a billion more people in their population than we have, is just a further indication that our system is pretty messed up.

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
In light of the accidental glitches and intentional coverup of evidence revealed in the last few decades, I simply can't support imposing the the death penalty now.

That's exactly how I feel. I support the death penalty in the hypothetical - where it's done fairly, efficiently, humanely, and acts as a deterrent to crime.

However in the practical, real world we live in, where pretty much none of that is true - absolutely not. We screw it up far too often and there are no take-backsies if you're wrong.

Same here, I simply don't trust the system not to feth up and send someone innocent to death. And I don't trust it to kill someone humanely, especially with the risk of fething up the execution of someone that could be innocent.

I turn this over in my mind quite a bit. On the one hand, we don't want innocent people executed, and on the other, we have cases of people who were convicted of murder being released who go on to murder again. The obvious solution to prevent the latter would be life without parole,
but how likely is that to happen?

**d-usa**

I think we did the math in one of these threats a few years ago. The raw numbers would be higher for murderers murdering again if they were released, but the raw percentage was higher for accidentally executing someone with a real possibility of being innocent.

Life in prison keeps murders of the street, and keeps innocent people alive to keep their chance at release.

**A Town Called Malus**

I think Norways system is good, where nobody gets sentenced to life without parole, everyone's cases get looked over at set intervals to determine whether their sentence needs to be extended or not.

**greatbigtree**

Hordini wrote:

Absolutely not. I am suggesting that our penal system has serious issues and the fact that a country that is known to be oppressive has fewer prisoners than we do, with a billion more people in their population than we have, is just a further indication that our system is pretty messed up.

The reason that North American systems have more prisoners, is that we don't execute as many prisoners. You can be executed for theft in many countries. You can be executed for drug possession. You can be executed for not sharing social "norms", like a particular religion, or sexual orientation.

North American systems have prisoners not because we punish more offences, but because the punishments are NOT execution. You don't imprison a corpse.

**Relapse**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think Norways system is good, where nobody gets sentenced to life without parole, everyone's cases get looked over at set intervals to determine whether their sentence needs to be extended or not.

We have parole hearings in the U.S. Even Manson gets reviewed every few years, which worries me, since that lunatic even having a glimmer of a chance of getting back out on the streets is frightening.

**oldravenman3025**

feeder wrote:
oldravenman3025 wrote:
feeder wrote:
oldravenman3025 wrote:
Relapse wrote:
This is another death penalty case I have trouble with. Where is the justice in leaving someone sweating 26 years before finally getting around to executing them? After that long, they should have just switched the penalty to life without parole.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/07/georgia-executes-inmate-for-1990-murder-father-in-law.html

It was because of legal maneuvering, a second trial (with the same verdict and penalty), petitions for clemency, appeals, and general wrangling. That's what usually drags out the time on death row before the sentence is carried out. And that appears to be the case here.

When sentenced to death, you should get one appeal and that's it. However, older cases/convictions from before the advent of modern forensic science/technology, and reliable DNA testing, should be reviewed if there is any question regarding the case. But there is no excuse anymore for dragging it out. Give them an appeal in the interests of due process, and if rejected, swiftly carry out the sentence. It's ridiculous that the taxpayers get shafted when all doubt is removed. Remove all the bullcrap and years of lengthy appeals, and you remove the number one problem with capital punishment in the United States: Exuberant costs.

Don't you have a background corrections? Given the total clusterfeth that the system is in, you really think the "number one problem" is the high cost?

Yes. And it's both my time in corrections and study of correctional issues/policy in college that is a big influence on my thinking.

In addition to court costs and legal costs (some of which comes from the taxpayer in some cases with the latter), it costs more per year to house a death row inmate than an inmate in administrative segregation, general population (all security classifications), long term disciplinary segregation, with special needs (poor health, terminal illness, mentally ill, or disabled), or protective segregation.

Death Row is a world unto itself (I've been to Central's death row wing in Raleigh. It's a lot different than the closed custody and segregation that I worked in. It takes a special breed to work death row long term). There are special security needs and procedures, staff with additional training, a 24-7 extraction team ("Goon Squad") on standby, tighter policy/special SOPs, and death row inmates have special needs because of their high security environment. There are also case managers, counselors, and clergy that are specialized in dealing with death row inmates. Some States, I'm told, even have separate kitchen with heavily vetted trustees for death row. And that's just the half of it.

All of those special security, staffing issues, facilities, needs, etc. cost big bucks and more than the average housing of a non-death row inmate. Add on years of legal eagle stuff , court sessions, paperwork, and appeals, and that cost in the facility housing alone is outrageously high.

I am a firm supporter of capital punishment. But even I think that the current system is cumbersome, overly expensive, and has too much politics involved. Things need to be streamlined and sped up in the present day, especially with the forensics and science we have now used to investigate capital crimes. In my view, having somebody lingering on death row for an excessive period of time constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. But eliminating the death penalty isn't the way to go, in my opinion.

We know that the state will execute innocents by accident, on occasion. Speeding up the process from trail to death will likely exacerbate this issue. It the execution of innocent persons (murder, in other words) an acceptable part of the system in your opinion? If so, what rate of accidental murder by the state is permissible?

It's happened in the past. Just not at the rate that some opponents of capital punishment like to claim (even if, as far as I'm concerned, one mistake is one too many. We can't have that).

That's why older cases should be carefully reviewed if there is even the slightest doubt, if such a speedy system is introduced. However, with the modern advances in forensic sciences, molecular biology, and DNA testing (among the other fields and techniques used in modern investigations), the chance of mistaken convictions is reduced to nil if you have half-way decent investigators working the case, proper facilities/resources are available to the investigators, and the agency in question is properly funded/staffed. Those are also issues that have to be addressed before a system is instituted to expedite death sentences for capital crimes.

Or, at least that how I see it as an ex-cop and ex-C.O. Some will disagree, and I respect that. It's a touchy topic for this country and the criminal justice system.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

greatbigtree wrote:
Hordini wrote:

Absolutely not. I am suggesting that our penal system has serious issues and the fact that a country that is known to be oppressive has fewer prisoners than we do, with a billion more people in their population than we have, is just a further indication that our system is pretty messed up.

The reason that North American systems have more prisoners, is that we don't execute as many prisoners. You can be executed for theft in many countries. You can be executed for drug possession. You can be executed for not sharing social "norms", like a particular religion, or sexual orientation.

North American systems have prisoners not because we punish more offences, but because the punishments are NOT execution. You don't imprison a corpse.

Indeed. the PRC, even with their "thinning the list" of what rates the death penalty, still list many offensives as capital crimes that are not considered such in the United States.

Hell, they even have specially trained, traveling traveling "execution teams" in the People's Armed Police nowadays. And they still carry out multiple executions in a single event.

**Hordini**

greatbigtree wrote:
Hordini wrote:

Absolutely not. I am suggesting that our penal system has serious issues and the fact that a country that is known to be oppressive has fewer prisoners than we do, with a billion more people in their population than we have, is just a further indication that our system is pretty messed up.

The reason that North American systems have more prisoners, is that we don't execute as many prisoners. You can be executed for theft in many countries. You can be executed for drug possession. You can be executed for not sharing social "norms", like a particular religion, or sexual orientation.

North American systems have prisoners not because we punish more offences, but because the punishments are NOT execution. You don't imprison a corpse.

Capital punishment has been suspended in Russia. Capital punishment in China is mostly for murder and drug trafficking, not theft or drug possession. China executes a few thousand people per year, which is very high for capital punishment, but it's not enough to make up the difference in prisoner population between the US and China. And again, China has a billion more people.

Again, I'm not saying that China and Russia's penal system is better than the US. But the fact that we have a higher prisoner population than either of them, particularly China considering the size of their population, is a cause for concern. Contributing factors for us are things like the war on drugs, our horrible recidivism rate, and things like mandatory minimum sentences and three strikes laws.

**AllSeeingSkink**

oldravenman3025 wrote:
It's happened in the past. Just not at the rate that some opponents of capital punishment like to claim (even if, as far as I'm concerned, one mistake is one too many. We can't have that).

That's why older cases should be carefully reviewed if there is even the slightest doubt, if such a speedy system is introduced. However, with the modern advances in forensic sciences, molecular biology, and DNA testing (among the other fields and techniques used in modern investigations), the chance of mistaken convictions is reduced to nil if you have half-way decent investigators working the case, proper facilities/resources are available to the investigators, and the agency in question is properly funded/staffed. Those are also issues that have to be addressed before a system is instituted to expedite death sentences for capital crimes.

Or, at least that how I see it as an ex-cop and ex-C.O. Some will disagree, and I respect that. It's a touchy topic for this country and the criminal justice system.

Sounds like you have more faith in the system than me. All of that stuff can still only suggest someone was in the vicinity of a crime rather than actually committing it and it can still be planted, tampered with or misinterpreted.

You could find the decapitated head of a victim in someone's duffel bag and it still wouldn't be proof enough in and of itself to execute someone IMO.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

greatbigtree wrote:
Hordini wrote:

Absolutely not. I am suggesting that our penal system has serious issues and the fact that a country that is known to be oppressive has fewer prisoners than we do, with a billion more people in their population than we have, is just a further indication that our system is pretty messed up.

The reason that North American systems have more prisoners, is that we don't execute as many prisoners. You can be executed for theft in many countries. You can be executed for drug possession. You can be executed for not sharing social "norms", like a particular religion, or sexual orientation.

North American systems have prisoners not because we punish more offences, but because the punishments are NOT execution. You don't imprison a corpse.

I'm pretty sure the reason the USA has more prisoners is down to the war on drugs (and maybe for-profit prisons? I'm not well versed on the subject).

Most countries don't execute anywhere near enough people to account for the massive discrepancy and you have plenty of countries which don't even have the death penalty. The USA exceeds the incarceration rates of Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan by around 7 times, SEVEN times. You'll struggle to convince me that Americans are 7 times more likely to be criminals or that the US justice system is 7 times more efficient at catching criminals than all those other places.

Even if China executes a few thousand people each year, it still pales in comparison to the tens to hundreds of thousands the USA locks up each year.

**cuda1179**

Hordini wrote:
curran12 wrote:
Well, since modern capital punishment is purely an exercise in revenge, who cares about that? More spectacle and more revenge stiffies for everyone!

The majority of the US penal system is purely an exercise in revenge. That's part of the reason our recidivism rate is so massive and why we have a bigger prisoner population than either China or Russia. That's not per capita either. We have more prisoners than China, full stop. China has a billion more people than we do.

Well, that is also because of a few reasons. We don't have vast areas of totally undeveloped land where we don't give a gak what goes on there. We actually have enough prisons for all our prisoners. We also don't do quick summary executions for relatively unserious crimes (executed people are not in prison for years there). That being said, we still do have a massive prison population.

When it comes to the death penalty I have two opinions. I feel a about 80% of them should be commuted to life in prison. The other 20% should be shuttled into an express line for the execution chamber. If you are caught on video, there are many eye witnesses, you admit it, or there is some other extreme evidence that is basically uncontestable, then you should be spending less than a year in jail after a trial before being executed.

As to the method, I'm a big fan of Nitrogen asphyxiation. You are just locked in an air-tight room and nitrogen gas is pumped in. You can't see it, smell it, or taste it. You just go to sleep and stop breathing, then die. It is 100% effective and humane. It is also cheap, available, and safe for everyone else. All the current unused gas chambers could literally be retrofitted in a manner of hours.

**AllSeeingSkink**

cuda1179 wrote:
...We actually have enough prisons for all our prisoners....

Or too many prisons but a desperate need to make sure they're filled

**Peregrine**

oldravenman3025 wrote:
It's happened in the past. Just not at the rate that some opponents of capital punishment like to claim (even if, as far as I'm concerned, one mistake is one too many. We can't have that).

Your statement that "one mistake is too many" directly contradicts your "one appeal, then execution" proposal. Appeals can have mistakes, and eliminating appeals for the sake of speed in execution means that mistakes will happen and innocent people will die. If "one mistake is too many then the only possible option is to have the maximum sentence be life in prison.

As for why we have so many people in prison, it's simple: the war on drugs. Take away the people who are in prison for victimless crimes and the US prison population goes down significantly. Take away the people who are in prison for crimes that only happen because drugs are illegal and it goes down even more. And if you really want to get political, take away the people who commit crimes out of desperation because poverty in the US is such an awful and hopeless situation and you probably get it down to a rate comparable with other "civilized" countries.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cuda1179 wrote:
When it comes to the death penalty I have two opinions. I feel a about 80% of them should be commuted to life in prison. The other 20% should be shuttled into an express line for the execution chamber. If you are caught on video, there are many eye witnesses, you admit it, or there is some other extreme evidence that is basically uncontestable, then you should be spending less than a year in jail after a trial before being executed.

This sounds nice in theory, but you can't quantify "obviously guilty" for that 20%. Confessions can be coerced and illegitimate, video evidence is not 100% reliable, etc. And a year after trial removes the possibility of the appeals process reversing an unjust verdict. So your "express line" for execution really means that people will live or die by the whim of whoever makes the decision on which group to put a person into, and I think the problems with that should be obvious.

**Breotan**

kronk wrote:
Why don't we do hangings anymore? With the botched injections in recent years, it's probably more humane, relatively speaking.

In Washington State we had a guy on death row get out of his execution by becoming obese. By the time all the legal wrangling had been done, he was quite heavy and a bit round. In his final appeal, his lawyers argued that hanging was cruel because he would likely be decapitated due to his weight. The State Supreme Court agreed and his sentence was commuted to life.

I believe trick to get out of a death sentence this was also done in Ohio but I don't know the details on that case.

**Ouze**

cuda1179 wrote:
The other 20% should be shuttled into an express line for the execution chamber. If you are caught on video, there are many eye witnesses, you admit it, or there is some other extreme evidence that is basically uncontestable(snip)

Italics mine - a confession isn't uncontestable. There are many examples of people who have confessed to crimes but were later exonerated by DNA - something like 1 out of 4 of DNA based exonerations are from people who confessed or implicated themselves from crimes they provably did not commit.

**cuda1179**

Ouze wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
The other 20% should be shuttled into an express line for the execution chamber. If you are caught on video, there are many eye witnesses, you admit it, or there is some other extreme evidence that is basically uncontestable(snip)

Italics mine - a confession isn't uncontestable. There are many examples of people who have confessed to crimes but were later exonerated by DNA - something like 1 out of 4 of DNA based exonerations are from people who confessed or implicated themselves from crimes they provably did not commit.

I guess I should clarify. There are people out there that have fully, 100% confessed and bragged about killing and never recanted at any point, even throughout their trial. If there is also a pretty good preponderance of evidence as well these people should just be put down.

**A Town Called Malus**

cuda1179 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
The other 20% should be shuttled into an express line for the execution chamber. If you are caught on video, there are many eye witnesses, you admit it, or there is some other extreme evidence that is basically uncontestable(snip)

Italics mine - a confession isn't uncontestable. There are many examples of people who have confessed to crimes but were later exonerated by DNA - something like 1 out of 4 of DNA based exonerations are from people who confessed or implicated themselves from crimes they provably did not commit.

I guess I should clarify. There are people out there that have fully, 100% confessed and bragged about killing and never recanted at any point, even throughout their trial. If there is also a pretty good preponderance of evidence as well these people should just be put down.

Just because they brag about it now and during their trial, doesn't mean they won't change their mindset later.

**Peregrine**

cuda1179 wrote:
I guess I should clarify. There are people out there that have fully, 100% confessed and bragged about killing and never recanted at any point, even throughout their trial. If there is also a pretty good preponderance of evidence as well these people should just be put down.

But how do you quantify this in a way that can function as a law? It's easy to say "this person deserves to die", it's much harder to turn that thought into a working system.

**cuda1179**

Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
I guess I should clarify. There are people out there that have fully, 100% confessed and bragged about killing and never recanted at any point, even throughout their trial. If there is also a pretty good preponderance of evidence as well these people should just be put down.

But how do you quantify this in a way that can function as a law? It's easy to say "this person deserves to die", it's much harder to turn that thought into a working system.

Point noted, and I do agree with you. Remember when a SC justice stated "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it". It's kind of the same deal here. I know that there are at least a couple people out there that even die-hard anti-capital punishment people would agree need old sparky.

**AllSeeingSkink**

cuda1179 wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
I guess I should clarify. There are people out there that have fully, 100% confessed and bragged about killing and never recanted at any point, even throughout their trial. If there is also a pretty good preponderance of evidence as well these people should just be put down.

But how do you quantify this in a way that can function as a law? It's easy to say "this person deserves to die", it's much harder to turn that thought into a working system.

Point noted, and I do agree with you. Remember when a SC justice stated "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it". It's kind of the same deal here. I know that there are at least a couple people out there that even die-hard anti-capital punishment people would agree need old sparky.

I'm not against executing people, bring back the guillotine for all I care. I am against executing people if it means anyone who might be undeserving may get killed and that's always a possibility. I'm also against executing people if it ends up costing the same or more to execute them than just throwing them in a hole for the rest of their lives.

At the end of the day I don't think capital punishment is worth the effort and worth the risks.

**Pouncey**

I don't support the death penalty. Too many mistakes are made, and with an innocent person behind bars, you can free them if the truth is discovered. Gets more difficult if they're dead.

That said, there's no point in making death row inmates suffer before their death. I liked my dad's suggestion for an execution method that would be incredibly humane yet also completely fatal. A massive morphine overdose.

**oldravenman3025**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
oldravenman3025 wrote:
It's happened in the past. Just not at the rate that some opponents of capital punishment like to claim (even if, as far as I'm concerned, one mistake is one too many. We can't have that).

That's why older cases should be carefully reviewed if there is even the slightest doubt, if such a speedy system is introduced. However, with the modern advances in forensic sciences, molecular biology, and DNA testing (among the other fields and techniques used in modern investigations), the chance of mistaken convictions is reduced to nil if you have half-way decent investigators working the case, proper facilities/resources are available to the investigators, and the agency in question is properly funded/staffed. Those are also issues that have to be addressed before a system is instituted to expedite death sentences for capital crimes.

Or, at least that how I see it as an ex-cop and ex-C.O. Some will disagree, and I respect that. It's a touchy topic for this country and the criminal justice system.
Sounds like you have more faith in the system than me. All of that stuff can still only suggest someone was in the vicinity of a crime rather than actually committing it and it can still be planted, tampered with or misinterpreted.

You could find the decapitated head of a victim in someone's duffel bag and it still wouldn't be proof enough in and of itself to execute someone IMO.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

greatbigtree wrote:
Hordini wrote:

Absolutely not. I am suggesting that our penal system has serious issues and the fact that a country that is known to be oppressive has fewer prisoners than we do, with a billion more people in their population than we have, is just a further indication that our system is pretty messed up.

The reason that North American systems have more prisoners, is that we don't execute as many prisoners. You can be executed for theft in many countries. You can be executed for drug possession. You can be executed for not sharing social "norms", like a particular religion, or sexual orientation.

North American systems have prisoners not because we punish more offences, but because the punishments are NOT execution. You don't imprison a corpse.
I'm pretty sure the reason the USA has more prisoners is down to the war on drugs (and maybe for-profit prisons? I'm not well versed on the subject).

Most countries don't execute anywhere near enough people to account for the massive discrepancy and you have plenty of countries which don't even have the death penalty. The USA exceeds the incarceration rates of Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan by around 7 times, SEVEN times. You'll struggle to convince me that Americans are 7 times more likely to be criminals or that the US justice system is 7 times more efficient at catching criminals than all those other places.

Even if China executes a few thousand people each year, it still pales in comparison to the tens to hundreds of thousands the USA locks up each year.

I see what you are saying. But there is much more to it than that. Unfortunately, I don't have the patience to type out an entire dissertation on modern forensics and investigate techniques just to prove a point. I did that with my Master's thesis. And that was an exercise in wading through a pond full of hog

and neck-deep . I was happy as a bedbug when all that was said and done.

As for the rest, the United States has a far larger population, with a far more varied social cross-section. So, there is bound to be more people incarcerated, both per capita and in raw numbers. Plus, you have the poorly handled "War on Drugs" and increase in gang activity across the country over the last thirty years to consider as well.

And seeing/reading how law enforcement currently works in other countries, including some in Western Europe, I can say that U.S. law enforcement is better (on average) at catching criminals and dealing with crime.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Pouncey wrote:
That said, there's no point in making death row inmates suffer before their death. I liked my dad's suggestion for an execution method that would be incredibly humane yet also completely fatal. A massive morphine overdose.

Unless maybe the person turns out to be allergic to morphine, then they might asphyxiate instead.

I say put 'em on a metal grate over a big hole and drop a 10,000kg weight on them. They ain't gonna feel nothing then, not even the prick of a needle

Automatically Appended Next Post:

oldravenman3025 wrote:
I see what you are saying. But there is much more to it than that. Unfortunately, I don't have the patience to type out an entire dissertation on modern forensics and investigate techniques just to prove a point. I did that with my Master's thesis. And that was an exercise in wading through a pond full of hog and neck-deep . I was happy as a bedbug when all that was said and done.

Fair enough, but saying you have an argument but don't have the patience to expound on it isn't actually an argument, so forgive me if I'm not convinced any more than I was before

As for the rest, the United States has a far larger population, with a far more varied social cross-section. So, there is bound to be more people incarcerated, both per capita and in raw numbers.Plus, you have the poorly handled "War on Drugs" and increase in gang activity across the country over the last thirty years to consider as well.

And seeing/reading how law enforcement currently works in other countries, including some in Western Europe, I can say that U.S. law enforcement is better (on average) at catching criminals and dealing with crime.

All the other stuff you mention at worst might place the USA high on the list of western countries, but it's not high on the list, it takes the list and leaves it in the dust. The 7 times I mentioned was the RATE not the overall number of prisoners.

I found this study which drew some interesting conclusions and recommendations...

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18613/the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes

In the 1960s and 1970s, a changed political climate provided the context for a series of policy choices. Across all branches and levels of government, criminal processing and sentencing expanded the use of incarceration in a number of ways: prison time was increasingly required for lesser offenses; time served was significantly increased for violent crimes and for repeat offenders; and drug crimes, particularly street dealing in urban areas, became more severely policed and punished ...

...More than half of the growth in state imprisonment during this period was driven by the increased likelihood of incarceration given an arrest. Arrest rates for drug offenses climbed in the 1970s, and mandatory prison time for these offenses became more common in the 1980s.

These changes in sentencing reflected a consensus that viewed incarceration as a key instrument for crime control. Yet over the four decades when incarceration rates steadily rose, U.S. crime rates showed no clear trend: the rate of violent crime rose, then fell, rose again, then declined sharply. The best single proximate explanation of the rise in incarceration is not rising crime rates, but the policy choices made by legislators to greatly increase the use of imprisonment as a response to crime. Mandatory prison sentences, intensified enforcement of drug laws, and long sentences contributed not only to overall high rates of incarceration, but also especially to extraordinary rates of incarceration in black and Latino communities.

CONCLUSION: The unprecedented rise in incarceration rates can be attributed to an increasingly punitive political climate surrounding criminal justice policy formed in a period of rising crime and rapid social change. This provided the context for a series of policy choices—across all branches and levels of government—that significantly increased sentence lengths, required prison time for minor offenses, and intensified punishment for drug crimes.

CONCLUSION: The increase in incarceration may have caused a decrease in crime, but the magnitude of the reduction is highly uncertain and the results of most studies suggest it was unlikely to have been large.

CONCLUSION: The incremental deterrent effect of increases in lengthy prison sentences is modest at best. Because recidivism rates decline markedly with age, lengthy prison sentences, unless they specifically target very high-rate or extremely dangerous offenders, are an inefficient approach to preventing crime by incapacitation.

CONCLUSION: The change in penal policy over the past four decades may have had a wide range of unwanted social costs, and the magnitude of crime reduction benefits is highly uncertain.

RECOMMENDATION: Given the small crime prevention effects of long prison sentences and the possibly high financial, social, and human costs of incarceration, federal and state policy makers should revise current criminal justice policies to significantly reduce the rate of incarceration in the United States. In particular, they should reexamine policies regarding mandatory prison sentences and long sentences. Policy makers should also take steps to improve the experience of incarcerated men and women and reduce unnecessary harm to their families and their communities.

So basically sounds like there was rising crime in the 70's and 80's, the response was to just put more people away for longer durations and now it's questionable whether it's actually done anything to help anyone.

**Pouncey**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
That said, there's no point in making death row inmates suffer before their death. I liked my dad's suggestion for an execution method that would be incredibly humane yet also completely fatal. A massive morphine overdose.
Unless maybe the person turns out to be allergic to morphine, then they might asphyxiate instead.

Doesn't matter. With that much morphine in their system they're not going to care about anything.

I say put 'em on a metal grate over a big hole and drop a 10,000kg weight on them. They ain't gonna feel nothing then, not even the prick of a needle

Are you sure you're not just into watching humans die in brutal ways? You could watch the Saw series you know, instead of demanding real humans die for your entertainment.

**General Annoyance**

Pouncey wrote:
Are you sure you're not just into watching humans die in brutal ways? You could watch the Saw series you know, instead of demanding real humans die for your entertainment.

I'm pretty sure that was a joke, Pouncey

**Pouncey**

General Annoyance wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
Are you sure you're not just into watching humans die in brutal ways? You could watch the Saw series you know, instead of demanding real humans die for your entertainment.

I'm pretty sure that was a joke, Pouncey

I have encountered people who seriously believe that all criminals who are convicted of a violent crime, should be taken out behind the courthouse immediately following their conviction and shot in the head.

**General Annoyance**

Sounds like you know a moron or two then.

Still doesn't come close to some of the views of a genuine Fascist group my friend managed to sneak me into on Facebook so I could have a good laugh reading it

**Pouncey**

General Annoyance wrote:
Sounds like you know a moron or two then.

Still doesn't come close to some of the views of a genuine Fascist group my friend managed to sneak me into on Facebook so I could have a good laugh reading it

Yes, that particular individual is quite dim. Also rather scary. Apparently he looks like Mr. Clean in real life. He was responsible for my WoW guild's raid team splitting off and forming their own guild due to this individual telling an incredibly racist joke to the raid leader, who was of a race applicable to the joke. At one point he removed two very helpful and kind individuals from the guild over a disagreement on the purpose of certain ranks in the guild, then proceeded to trash-talk them in a highly-public in-game channel. Then he broke out the recording software and uploaded the chat logs to YouTube.

I often wonder why I stay in the guild, but then I remember that I stay for the much more likable members, not for him.

**sebster**

Relapse wrote:
I turn this over in my mind quite a bit. On the one hand, we don't want innocent people executed, and on the other, we have cases of people who were convicted of murder being released who go on to murder again. The obvious solution to prevent the latter would be life without parole,
but how likely is that to happen?

I find it really strange that we can have societies with the death penalty, but consider it extremely unlikely that we could ever have a system of life sentences with no chance of parole.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your summary, I think you may well be right that such a system won't ever happen. I'm just saying I find that really weird, and it shows humans to be very strange creatures.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cuda1179 wrote:
Well, that is also because of a few reasons. We don't have vast areas of totally undeveloped land where we don't give a gak what goes on there. We actually have enough prisons for all our prisoners. We also don't do quick summary executions for relatively unserious crimes (executed people are not in prison for years there). That being said, we still do have a massive prison population.

Could people please stop mentioning executions as a reason China's prison population is smaller than the U? It is wrong in its basic maths.

China has 1.5 million people in prison. The US has 2.2 million. Given China has more than three times the population of the US, then if China had the same rate of incarceration as the US, the population would be more than 4.5 million.

At the same time, China executes about 2,500 people each year. 2,500 does not explain a material portion of a 3,000,000 variance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

oldravenman3025 wrote:
And seeing/reading how law enforcement currently works in other countries, including some in Western Europe, I can say that U.S. law enforcement is better (on average) at catching criminals and dealing with crime.

Police clearance rates between developed countries are pretty similar. And where they are different what you mostly see is a decline in the number of offences (these two items feed each other, as increased clearance rates decreases the likelihood of a crime, and lower crime rates allow greater police resources to complete the remaining crimes).

Police clearance isn't the driver behind the US higher rate of incarceration. This really is one of those cases where the the simplest, most obvious answer is also the correct one - the US has more people in prison than other developed countries because there are things that will get you prison time in the US that won't get you prison time in other countries.