Ann Widdecombe RIP

Chizz

R0TW said:

Chizz said:

R0TW said:

This is a typical example of the death sentence being warranted 

Even though you don't know what happened, or why, or what the motives might have been?  Or who might have been involved, who might have instigated the events, who might have encouraged them? Even though there hasn't been a conviction, verdict, plea or even trial? Even though a death sentence is a significantly greater cost to the taxpayer than a life sentence? 

Wouldn't it be better, all-round, to go through the full, fair judicial process, protecting the interests of all sides and then deciding on guilt or innocence before leaping to sentencing? 

Obviously guilt would need to be proven. If proven, then this would be my idea of a fair sentence 
By guilt, premeditate murder with no logical reasoning why this act should be committed.
perhaps you could explain why a life sentence would be cheaper?
I don’t get that bit.

Appeals are expensive and can take years. So, if we want a water-right, reliable, trustworthy criminal process, we have to be willing to meet the eye-watering costs. 

Multi-year appeal processes mean multi-year death row imprisonment, which is more expensive than the cost of imprisoning a lifer. 

Some real-world examples: 

- California estimated its death penalty system had cost taxpayers several billion dollars more than life imprisonment without parole.

- Kansas found capital cases cost roughly 70% more than comparable non-capital murder cases.

- Maryland, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and others have all reported significantly higher costs for death penalty cases. 

So, if we want to increase the cost to taxpayers of punishing murderers, the death penalty is an effect way to do that. 

But, of course, there's more. Because those jurisdictions with the death penalty have higher murder rates. 

Do we really want to spend more punishing murderers while, at the same time, almost guaranteeing the murder rate goes up? 

SporadicAddick

Chizz said:

R0TW said:

Chizz said:

R0TW said:

This is a typical example of the death sentence being warranted 

Even though you don't know what happened, or why, or what the motives might have been?  Or who might have been involved, who might have instigated the events, who might have encouraged them? Even though there hasn't been a conviction, verdict, plea or even trial? Even though a death sentence is a significantly greater cost to the taxpayer than a life sentence? 

Wouldn't it be better, all-round, to go through the full, fair judicial process, protecting the interests of all sides and then deciding on guilt or innocence before leaping to sentencing? 

Obviously guilt would need to be proven. If proven, then this would be my idea of a fair sentence 
By guilt, premeditate murder with no logical reasoning why this act should be committed.
perhaps you could explain why a life sentence would be cheaper?
I don’t get that bit.

Appeals are expensive and can take years. So, if we want a water-right, reliable, trustworthy criminal process, we have to be willing to meet the eye-watering costs. 

Multi-year appeal processes mean multi-year death row imprisonment, which is more expensive than the cost of imprisoning a lifer. 

Some real-world examples: 

- California estimated its death penalty system had cost taxpayers several billion dollars more than life imprisonment without parole.

- Kansas found capital cases cost roughly 70% more than comparable non-capital murder cases.

- Maryland, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and others have all reported significantly higher costs for death penalty cases. 

So, if we want to increase the cost to taxpayers of punishing murderers, the death penalty is an effect way to do that. 

But, of course, there's more. Because those jurisdictions with the death penalty have higher murder rates. 

Do we really want to spend more punishing murderers while, at the same time, almost guaranteeing the murder rate goes up? 

Is there a proven causal link between a jurisdiction with the death penalty and higher murder rates i.e the murder rate is higher because the jurisdiction has the death penalty, as you imply.

aliwibble

Chizz said:

This case is now sub judice. 

A suspect has now been charged.  Which means that idle speculation moves from merely unhelpful to potentially breaking the law. (You know, unlimited fine, up to two years in prison. That sort of thing).  

Out of respect for the victim and for the judicial process, it would be far better if tittle-tattle, slander, malicious gossip and scandal-mongering were kept to the absolute bare minimum.  Or less. 

Yep. Probably safest to close the thread for now, and reopen once the court case is done.