Support NeoGAF

[efyu_lemonardo]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/.../t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.VcYxj6gViko

I read through it rather quickly, so correct me if I've missed a substantial point. The article says that appealing the death penalty is very expensive for the state. And that as technology has improved it has become increasingly possible to prove a man's innocence years after being falsely sentenced to death.

These points don't really seem to apply to cases like this one, though.

 

[usernamechange]

I read through it rather quickly, so correct me if I've missed a substantial point. The article says that appealing the death penalty is very expensive for the state. And that as technology has improved it has become increasingly possible to prove a man's innocence years after being falsely sentenced to death.

These points don't really seem to apply to cases like this one, though.

Uh no, if Holmes had been given the death penalty, he still would have been allowed to appeal. It very much applies to this case.

 

[Smokey_Run]

Uh no, if Holmes had been given the death penalty, he still would have been allowed to appeal. It very much applies to this case.

I believe the first appeal is automatic, too.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Uh no, if Holmes had been given the death penalty, he still would have been allowed to appeal. It very much applies to this case.

Would the country have to pay for his appeal?

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

The only way you'd save any money with the death penalty is if you march the condemned directly to the execution chamber after the verdict is read.

Otherwise capital punishment is an exorbitant waste of money - far more wasteful than life in prison.

You could be right, but all that article proves to me is that it is far more wasteful in the U.S. Judicial system.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Would the country have to pay for his appeal?

If people had to pay for their own appeal, only the rich would be able to appeal...

 

[BertramCooper]

You could be right, but all that article proves to me is that it is far more wasteful in the U.S. Judicial system.

Well then prove your point, dude.

You mentioned "secondary consequences" (plural) and haven't provided any evidence of a single consequence.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

If people had to pay for their own appeal, only the rich would be able to appeal...

I'm not claiming that in the general case the country shouldn't pay for one's appeal. I'm asking why does it make sense to pay for this particular appeal?

The judicial system seems to have come to the conclusion that this man is guilty beyond any possible doubt, and also that he is irredeemable to the point that his life sentence cannot be questioned. Given that, why shouldn't he be responsible for providing the funds required to continue to support his existence?


edit:

Well then prove your point, dude.

You mentioned "secondary consequences" (plural) and haven't provided any evidence of a single consequence.

I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm raising doubt in the way the current system is constructed. And I've explained the source of this doubt, and also admitted that some components of it are personal.

 

[BertramCooper]

I'm not claiming that in the general case the country shouldn't pay for one's appeal. I'm asking why does it make sense to pay for this particular appeal?

The judicial system seems to have come to the conclusion that this man is guilty beyond any possible doubt, and also that he is irredeemable to the point that his life sentence cannot be questioned. Given that, why shouldn't he be responsible for providing the funds required to continue to support his existence?

Because of the Constitution and the Supreme Court?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright

 

[usernamechange]

I'm not claiming that in the general case the country shouldn't pay for one's appeal. I'm asking why does it make sense to pay for this particular appeal?

The judicial system seems to have come to the conclusion that this man is guilty beyond any possible doubt, and also that he is irredeemable to the point that his life sentence cannot be questioned. Given that, why shouldn't he be responsible for providing the funds required to continue to support his existence?

Because that would then apply to anyone found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, and then, as stated above, only the rich could appeal. You can't just make up rules for a single person.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Because that would then apply to anyone found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, and then, as stated above, only the rich could appeal. You can't just make up rules for a single person.

Why would a ruling about a mass murderer who is guilty beyond any shred of a doubt apply to anyone who was sentenced to life in prison?

Because of the Constitution and the Supreme Court?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright

So the reason the law makes sense is because it's the law?

Laws are meant to constantly improve... Even the page you linked mentions that..

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I'm not claiming that in the general case the country shouldn't pay for one's appeal. I'm asking why does it make sense to pay for this particular appeal?

The judicial system seems to have come to the conclusion that this man is guilty beyond any possible doubt, and also that he is irredeemable to the point that his life sentence cannot be questioned. Given that, why shouldn't he be responsible for providing the funds required to continue to support his existence?
.

Because you can't pick and choose who you want to give certain rights to. All that does is leave the appeals process open to be horribly abused by people in positions of power. If some random dude convicted of murder gets to appeal the decision, so does Mr. Holmes, that's the way things do and should work.

Why would a ruling about a mass murderer who is guilty beyond any shred of a doubt apply to anyone who was sentenced to life in prison?

Everybody in prison is there because they are "guilty beyond any shred of doubt" according to the law. We don't (ideally) convict people because they "kinda, sorta look like they probably did it".

What you want is to change laws to specifically apply to the one in a million outlier cases, which is just stupid. The laws should apply the same way to everyone.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Because you can't pick and choose who you want to give certain rights to. All that does is leave the appeals process open to be horribly abused by people in positions of power. If some random dude convicted of murder gets to appeal the decision, so does Mr. Holmes, that's the way things do and should work.

I'm not a lawyer, and certainly don't claim to be familiar with U.S law, but if what you're saying is that according to U.S. law there's no difference between what this person did and any other convicted murderer, then there's a problem with how the law is defined.

Everybody in prison is there because they are "guilty beyond any shred of doubt" according to the law. We don't (ideally) convict people because they "kinda, sorta look like they probably did it".

I don't think that's true, because in other cases there is a possibility to appeal the decision, or shorten the sentence based on good behavior.

What you want is to change laws to specifically apply to the one in a million outlier cases, which is just stupid. The laws should apply the same way to everyone.

The law should be tailored to the severity of the crime and to the degree of likelihood of a mistake.

 

[BertramCooper]

Why would a ruling about a mass murderer who is guilty beyond any shred of a doubt apply to anyone who was sentenced to life in prison?

There are a number of reasons a person, even someone like Holmes who is clearly guilty, could have grounds for an ultimately successful appeal. Prosecutorial misconduct. Witness tampering. Misuse of evidence. Law enforcement not adhering to protocols. Any number of things could be uncovered after the case has ended that could result in a sentence being overturned, even if the defendant was guilty of the crime.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I'm not a lawyer, and certainly don't claim to be familiar with U.S law, but if what you're saying is that according to U.S. law there's no difference between what this person did and any other convicted murderer, then there's a problem with how the law is defined.





I don't think that's true, because in other cases there is a possibility to appeal the decision, or shorten the sentence based on good behavior.

I'm saying that in theory, you can't convict someone of anything unless it is beyond any reasonable doubt. Again, you want special laws applied to outlier case to remove rights of certain individuals. I'm saying I don't trust our imperfect and easily manipulated judicial system with this power. I don't want them to be able to rush into killing someone. I don't want to change laws for the outlier cases that happen once in a blue moon just so that people's barbaric lust for revenge can be satisfied. Those are stupid and inane reasons to want a change in the law.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

There are a number of reasons a person, even someone like Holmes who is clearly guilty, could have grounds for an ultimately successful appeal. Prosecutorial misconduct. Witness tampering. Misuse of evidence. Law enforcement not adhering to protocols. Any number of things could be uncovered after the case has ended that could result in a sentence being overturned, even if the defendant was guilty of the crime.

And again, speaking as a layman, that's not a problem?

 

[Ninja Scooter]

And again, speaking as a layman, that's not a problem?

No. There's been countless cases where the jury and the prosecutors were 100% positive they had their man, and could probably convince you of the same, which were later overturned for any variety of reasons. I think having that process in place and available is far better for our society than killing people is. Your life will be no better or worse if Holmes is dead, no matter what you want to believe.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

I'm saying that in theory, you can't convict someone of anything unless it is beyond any reasonable doubt. Again, you want special laws applied to outlier case to remove rights of certain individuals. I'm saying I don't trust our imperfect and easily manipulated judicial system with this power. I don't want them to be able to rush into killing someone. I don't want to change laws for the outlier cases that happen once in a blue moon just so that people's barbaric lust for revenge can be satisfied. Those are stupid and inane reasons to want a change in the law.

I disagree, I think when cases are this extreme that they show up once in a blue moon then it's a perfect opportunity to write a law that addresses them specifically. Because it would appear to be relatively straightforward to write this law in a way that is so specific it would be very difficult to apply in more ambiguous cases.

 

[dabig2]

I'll just say this, if the mere existence of someone who did you harm causes you pain and suffering, then that is a personal problem of yours, not of the justice system's or society's. Talk to a shrink or your preacher. If you're a Christian and believe in hell, be satisfied that the perpetrator will get his comeuppance eventually (as long as he doesn't accept Jesus Christ into his heart before he dies of course!) In fact, it's why we have a justice system at all. We aim to take away judge, jury, and executioner from those directly involved. Or at least that's the aim and goal.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I disagree, I think when cases are this extreme that they show up once in a blue moon then it's a perfect opportunity to write a law that addresses them specifically. Because it would appear to be relatively straightforward to write this law in a way that is so specific it would be very difficult to apply in more ambiguous cases.

Even if though this case is straight forward, what if it was found out the prosecution fabricated evidence?

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

No. There's been countless cases where the jury and the prosecutors were 100% positive they had their man, and could probably convince you of the same, which were later overturned for any variety of reasons. I think having that process in place and available is far better for our society than killing people is. Your life will be no better or worse if Holmes is dead, no matter what you want to believe.

Let me ask a different question. Is it possible to overturn this particular ruling?
Is there room in the law to appeal the decision that there can be no appeal and no change to this sentence?

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I disagree, I think when cases are this extreme that they show up once in a blue moon then it's a perfect opportunity to write a law that addresses them specifically. Because it would appear to be relatively straightforward to write this law in a way that is so specific it would be very difficult to apply in more ambiguous cases.

What about cases that aren't this newsworthy? Cases that don't make headlines all over the world or aren't as high profile as this and whose facts are not as widely known. What if a prosecutor wants to convince you that their case is one of these "extreme" ones too and wants to send their defendant to a quick and immediate death. Then what? Do we have some sort of costly appeal to determine if this person deserves appeals? How do you determine which are these "extreme" cases? Are we determining who lives and dies based on how much media coverage (ie how much a lay person knows about) their crimes get?

 

[Archer]

Why proponent life in prison? Your tax dollars will pay to keep him there. Just shiv him and dump him in the Rockies for the bears to eat.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Why proponent life in prison? Your tax dollars will pay to keep him there. Just shiv him and dump him in the Rockies for the bears to eat.

Because with the way our justice system works, there'd probably be a lot of innocent poor and/or colored people dumped in those rockies over the last 60 or so years.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

What about cases that aren't this newsworthy? Cases that don't make headlines all over the world or aren't as high profile as this and whose facts are not as widely known. What if a prosecutor wants to convince you that their case is one of these "extreme" ones too and wants to send their defendant to a quick and immediate death. Then what? Do we have some sort of costly appeal to determine if this person deserves appeals? How do you determine which are these "extreme" cases? Are we determining who lives and dies based on how much media coverage (ie how much a lay person knows about) their crimes get?

By extreme I meant the actual circumstances of the crime, not the attention it has attracted by the media. And the way to determine if a case is extreme is by checking how often it occurs - the same thing we do to determine that an act is abnormal.

 

[usernamechange]

Why proponent life in prison? Your tax dollars will pay to keep him there. Just shiv him and dump him in the Rockies for the bears to eat.

Because this is what idiots and psychopaths believe, and we shouldn't let them run the justice system.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Why proponent life in prison? Your tax dollars will pay to keep him there. Just shiv him and dump him in the Rockies for the bears to eat.

Because we're human, not animals. Doing that makes us no better than him.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Because we're human, not animals. Doing that makes us no better than him.

Not saying we should do that, but even if we did I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that actually believes it makes us no better than him. It's a rather strange defense, frankly.

 

[FyreWulff]

Why proponent life in prison? Your tax dollars will pay to keep him there. Just shiv him and dump him in the Rockies for the bears to eat.

Only if you view 3 hots and a cot as a luxury and not a base need for a human to survive.

He's in prison for life. He isn't getting out. Society is safe from any further harm from him. What does killing him at this point accomplish? What does forcing a doctor to kill someone really do for society?

 

[Princess Carl]

Only if you view 3 hots and a cot as a luxury and not a base need for a human to survive.

He's in prison for life. He isn't getting out. Society is safe from any further harm from him. What does killing him at this point accomplish? What does forcing a doctor to kill someone really do for society?

Dat bloodlust tho.

 

[DarkKyo]

Only if you view 3 hots and a cot as a luxury and not a base need for a human to survive.

He's in prison for life. He isn't getting out. Society is safe from any further harm from him. What does killing him at this point accomplish? What does forcing a doctor to kill someone really do for society?

Yep. Aging in prison until you die has to be a worse punishment than a free ticket out of existence anyways. The people who call for executions are likely thinking with their emotions and not with cold logic. If you really want this dude to suffer for his actions, life in prison will be much more effective. After all, the dead can no longer suffer.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Dat bloodlust tho.

Is it bloodlust to say he should have to support himself? Let him figure out how to pay for his meals and and shelter, just like every other person on the planet.

 

[KingGondo]

Is it bloodlust to say he should have to support himself? Let him figure out how to pay for his meals and and shelter, just like every other person on the planet.

This makes no sense. How could he earn a living if he's imprisoned?

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

This makes no sense. How could he earn a living if he's imprisoned?

knit sweaters for all I care. That's his problem to deal with. We all experience our career and life options become more limited if we perform badly or make poor choices.

 

[DarkKyo]

knit sweaters for all I care. That's his problem to deal with. We all experience our career and life options become more limited if we perform badly or make poor choices.

I've never, ever heard this argument before. Probably because it's so stupid.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

knit sweaters for all I care. That's his problem to deal with. We all experience our career and life options become more limited if we perform badly or make poor choices.

We all have freedom, he doesn't

 

[minor effort]

One less piece of shit on it, I'd say that's an improvement.

Someone that murders 12 people in cold blood like this simply should no longer be allowed to remain on this planet.

This is not a proper argument. Unless you can articulate what the actual purpose is for executing him that goes beyond "one less turd on our planet", I'm going to assume your response isn't just influenced by emotion but solely based on it.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

I've never, ever heard this argument before. Probably because it's so stupid.

How is it stupid? All I'm saying is he should earn his living, within the constraints that his choices have brought. There are plenty of things one could do inside a prison to earn one's living. And surely there are jobs that would be undesirable to others and can be done alone.

We all have freedom, he doesn't

And the reason for that is?

Hint:

Spoiler

it has to with the fact that we all don't do something that he did....

 

[neorej]

No, they can never go back to their "merry lives" again. What a flip thing to say. But they could have taken some solace in knowing that the killer was properly, proportionally, and definitively punished. And no, I don't believe anything that let him continue to draw breath is adequate punishment.

The father of the woman paralyzed and grandfather of her murdered children said this about the verdict yesterday:

"He's living, he's breathing, and our loved ones are gone — for over three years now. And the gaping void, the gaping wound that we have with the loss of our granddaughter, has been replaced by a new abscess of him living."

And for that matter, I am an advocate of gun control and absolutely agree that the reason Holmes was able to hurt and kill so many was because he was able to buy weapons he had no business owning. It's an absurdity and an ongoing tragedy. So I don't fit neatly in the ideological box you tried to place me in. Regardless, the ability of almost anybody to buy needlessly powerful weapons is a separate issue from the killer's guilt and punishment.

There are a lot of smug, disinterested, and frankly inexperienced people in this thread who have never had to deal with loss or injustice on this scale. When you abstract things so heavily that you don't have to look at the specifics of the killer and the harm he did his victims, it's quite easy to be self-righteous and absolutist and make grand pronouncements about reason and barbarism. As ever, the truth and substance of the matter are more nuanced. The trial was fairly conducted but, again, I feel sorry for the victims who were denied the relief and compensation his death would have provided.

You're only listening to half of the victims and their families though. According to an article linked on this thread, the reactions were mixed. Some are happy with the verdict, some are not. You're cherry picking the ones that favor your stance, which is fine in itself, but don't pretend like you're speaking on behalf of all the victims.

And I'm not putting anyone in an ideological box, I'm merely pointing out that these victims could've had a nice evening, disappointed by the worst death scene in a Hollywood production, and go home, if changes most sane people were pushing for were made. No punishment in this case in the world is going to prevent the next massacre by some other individual.

Thinking that the death penalty would've given these people any solace is wishful thinking, because nothing can eradicate that pain. Being alive is not some kind of ultimate prize that is beyond anything, and when taken doesn't make you somehow triumphant over that person. Ask it does is ending someone's life. Period. Nothing else happens. He's alive, yes. Living in a hole, a few square feet, a small bunk bed and an aluminum bowl to call his toilet. He gets feed shit food they'd even toss at McDonald's and his daily activities are strictly regulated. He's going to prison, not the Ritz.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Only if you view 3 hots and a cot as a luxury and not a base need for a human to survive.

He's in prison for life. He isn't getting out. Society is safe from any further harm from him. What does killing him at this point accomplish? What does forcing a doctor to kill someone really do for society?

It's a luxury the two dozen people he killed for absolutely no reason don't have, anyway. And he's still going to be able to get visits from his parents and fan mail from other crazy fucks who idolize him. Read books and watch TV and masturbate in the corner and have someone else have to clean that up. He can still be a crazy piece of shit toward the guards who have to deal with him and still reopen emotional wounds for his victims when he invariably pops up in the news for doing crazy things in prison.

Why should someone so completely, irredeemably worthless be allowed to escape the specter of death they inflicted on innocent people? He killed kids. He didn't even do it for twisted ideological reasons. He did it for no reason whatsoever. He literally idolized the Joker. He wasn't poor, he wasn't oppressed, he wasn't "from Circumstances." He was just a bungled mass of nucleotides the world has let exist for 27 years too long and counting. The idea that exterminating something vile like Holmes automatically makes us "just as bad" by default is morality at the mentality of a '90s children's cartoon.

 

[minor effort]

Why proponent life in prison? Your tax dollars will pay to keep him there. Just shiv him and dump him in the Rockies for the bears to eat.

So people convicted and sentenced to the death penalty should be killed the day after sentencing without any appeals process whatsoever? That's the kind of justice system you see in dictatorships.

Your tax dollars pay to keep many reprehensible people in prison.

Folks, if you're angry about this, protest the NRA. Protest gun manufacturers. Write a letter to Rick Perry telling him that arming everyone in movie theaters is not the solution. Find a better outlet for your anger than calling for a murderer you'll probably forget about in a few years to be killed.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

So people convicted and sentenced to the death penalty should be killed the day after sentencing without any appeals process whatsoever? That's the kind of justice system you see in dictatorships.

Your tax dollars pay to keep many reprehensible people in prison.

Here's a morbid hypothetical suggestion: Let's say I've been given the death penalty and have 1 year to live before I am to be executed. During that year I'm still in prison but I have the right to seek financial assistance from anybody willing to hear me, and I can use this assistance to buy additional years of life in prison or to hire a lawyer and appeal the sentence, or to hire a private investigator in the hopes of uncovering new evidence, etc.

Since my options for earning money within prison are rather limited I decide to set up a public fund, a sort of kickstarter or patreon if you will. People can donate money and I can give regular updates about what I'm doing with that money, and as long as I can pay for the things I mentioned above the cost to the taxpayer of keeping me alive would be almost nothing - essentially just the cost of running the patreon.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Here's a morbid hypothetical suggestion: Let's say I've been given the death penalty and have 1 year to live before I am to be executed. During that year I'm still in prison but I have the right to seek financial assistance from anybody willing to hear me, and I can use this assistance to buy additional years of life in prison or to hire a lawyer and appeal the sentence, or to hire a private investigator in the hopes of uncovering new evidence, etc.

Since my options for earning money within prison are rather limited I decide to set up a public fund, a sort of kickstarter or patreon if you will. People can donate money and I can give regular updates about what I'm doing with that money, and as long as I can pay for the things I mentioned above the cost to the taxpayer of keeping me alive would be almost nothing - essentially just the cost of running the patreon.

That would be a disgusting way for the appeals process to work. Basically limiting it to the rich and/or (in)famous. There are people who were wrongly convicted and sent to death row who would have been executed rather than exonerated under this system.

 

[minor effort]

Here's a morbid hypothetical suggestion: Let's say I've been given the death penalty and have 1 year to live before I am to be executed. During that year I'm still in prison but I have the right to seek financial assistance from anybody willing to hear me, and I can use this assistance to buy additional years of life in prison or to hire a lawyer and appeal the sentence, or to hire a private investigator in the hopes of uncovering new evidence, etc.

Since my options for earning money within prison are rather limited I decide to set up a public fund, a sort of kickstarter or patreon if you will. People can donate money and I can give regular updates about what I'm doing with that money, and as long as I can pay for the things I mentioned above the cost to the taxpayer of keeping me alive would be almost nothing - essentially just the cost of running the patreon.

No.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

That would be a disgusting way for the appeals process to work. Basically limiting it to the rich and/or (in)famous.

For us living outside of prison, how much money we have and how many connections we have are hugely important to how well and how long we live.

There are people who were wrongly convicted and sent to death row who would have been executed rather than exonerated under this system.

Only if very little people cared about them to begin with.

No.

It was an attempt to set up a situation in which my continued existence and well being depend on other people's belief in me as a person, as well as my ability to justify that belief through communication and any other form of service I would be able to provide. It's not all that different from how any law abiding adult is treated.

 

[DrForester]

I'm not against the Death Penalty in extreme cases. Not every state is Texas. Colorado giving a death sentence for less than half a dozen cases in over 40 years does not make me feel it is a penalty that is hand out recklessly, or irresponsibly.

As for the victims, I think what the Governor of Colorado recently did is terrible. We had a guy in the 90's kill almost a half dozen of his co-workers at a Chuck-E-Cheese (after hours thankfully). He's been on Death Row and has exhausted his appeals. He was supposed to be killed a few years ago.

Our Governor, who didn't want his execution to be an election issue (his reasoning), decided to make an election issue. He delayed the sentence until he is out of office. He didn't commute his sentence, he just put it aside because he's a spineless ass with no real standing on any issue.

I actually think that is worse, both for the killer (who now has to wait for 4 more years to learn what his fate is), and of course for the victims family for not getting the justice they were expecting.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

For us living outside of prison, how much money we have and how many connections we have are hugely important to how well and how long we live.



Only if very little people cared about them to begin with.

.

Wow. You're kind of an abhorrent human being.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Wow. You're kind of an abhorrent human being.

If making upsetting arguments while having a discussion on an internet forum makes me abhorrent, then what makes a mass murderer so deserving of multiple layers of caution and careful consideration?

 

[minor effort]

For us living outside of prison, how much money we have and how many connections we have are hugely important to how well and how long we live.



Only if very little people cared about them to begin with.





It was an attempt to set up a situation in which my continued existence and well being depend on other people's belief in me as a person, as well as my ability to justify that belief through communication and any other form of service I would be able to provide. It's not all that different from how any law abiding adult is treated.

No.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

If making upsetting arguments while having a discussion on an internet forum makes me abhorrent, then what makes a mass murderer so deserving of multiple layers of caution and careful consideration?

You are basically presenting a system where the state has the ability to lock you up or even kill you, and your ability to defend against that is tied to how rich your are or how many connections you have. It's disgusting.