Serious Question About Death Penalty Costs

EBSB52 · December 12, 2004

Quote
Quote
Quote
A better question: why is it that we spend more than minimum wage to keep people in cages?

Detention Officers are hard enough to retain, that's why. The question I have is why does the system allow layers to screw up this country so much?

I have the answer:

1. Rich/affluent people make the laws
2. The same are benefited by shyster lawyers
3. Conclusion is obvious

The question was not why it costs as much as it does but, thinking like a liberal for a second, why we spend what we do as opposed to spending it on preventative programs.

The laws are made by a variety of people on two sides of the political spectrum. I doubt affirmative action and other social programs were designed to benefit the affluent or lawyers. What about Bush's tax proposal? Does that benefit lawyers.

BTW you really need to read the forum rules about personal attacks.

Wrong answer.

No, the question by you was: why is it that we spend more than minimum wage to keep people in cages?

My answer was:

Detention Officers are hard enough to retain, that's why.

OK, what's wrong with that? That is the answer, they pay what they have to in order to retain the people. The you replied by saying:

The question was not why it costs as much as it does but, ...

Right, you asked why we spend more than minimum wage to keep people in cages; isn;t that the same as your question? I guess I need to define what the context of is, is.

...why we spend what we do as opposed to spending it on preventative programs.

You didn't state or ask that, and I know you don't feel that way, which is why you prefaced it with, "...thinking like a liberal for a second..."

The laws are made by a variety of people on two sides of the political spectrum.

Where have you been for the last 24+ years? What laws have been enacted on the side of the left? Also, powers of veto preclude your contention. A representative Democracy is something less liberating than a Monarchy of old. The voters of Maricopa County voted down a staudium tax increase for Bank One Ballpark, the County Board of Supervisors held a midnight session to have a new vote, did so and it was passed against the will of the people. There are examples everywhere that indicate the will of the people via elected representatives is a joke.

BTW, by saying the two sides, you are ignoring Independants.

I doubt affirmative action and other social programs were designed to benefit the affluent or lawyers.

Are you joking or posturing for some forum members not in the know? I'm not in law school in part due to AA. Lawyers are non-white in many cases, so I think they are benefuted from AA. The US Sup Ct just recently upheld that UofM appeal where a white female was denied admission and the admissions rules allowed for great advantage for non-whites. In case you don't know, the current court is very conservative and caters to corps and the rich.

As for not helping lawyers, are you saying that lawyers don't hang all over AA in civil cases? Give me a break.

What about Bush's tax proposal? Does that benefit lawyers.

Which one, all I know are the ones that cut taxes for the rich and send jobs overseas via tax breaks for corps.

BTW you really need to read the forum rules about personal attacks.

give me a break - you wrote shyster in your profile.

Trent · December 12, 2004

I'm glad you spent so much time researching to respond to me, on a sunday no less.

My question is how do you figure out what it costs for the state to have a trial? That means any trial. Of course, death penalty cases are what we talk about here. Answers I was looking for, look like what Phree has stated. (did I already say this?) I wanted to know, from a business analysis type of framework, how those costs were decided. It is a technical question that you're trying to turn into an argument about what I think. Quite silly to do.

BUT... in the interests of shutting you up about what I think (since you're the expert on my thoughts)...

I know that death cases cost more than a non death case (regardless of incarceration costs), and thanks to the more informative posts, I know why. Like I said originally, I hadn't put too much thought into the math there and wanted some input. I asked a few additional questions with some of my initial thoughts so that people could have some specific answers. You could have just answered the question instead of throwing accusations and babbling about my political leanings. You don't like my skepticism on this subject, but you'll tell me that blindly accepting a party line on something is stupid?

Come on.

You want to get the death penalty case outlawed? You'd better have more than just a moral argument before you take it to a governor or state legislature. If you walk in saying, "I know it costs more, I just know it." That won't be good enough. You'll have to SHOW that it does. Some people have already done this and I want to know how.

At the end of the day, if you want to know what I think about a subject, ask. Don't just assume you know something about someone you've never met. But if you want to keep arguing about what I'm thinking, and maybe not posting, go ahead... you'll be wrong.

Have another nice day.

Oh, hello again!

Jib · December 13, 2004

Quote
BTW you really need to read the forum rules about personal attacks.

give me a break - you wrote shyster in your profile.

You need thicker glasses. I never have nor would I ever refer to lawyers a shysters.

I'm done here.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

EBSB52 · December 13, 2004

Quote
Quote
BTW you really need to read the forum rules about personal attacks.

give me a break - you wrote shyster in your profile.

You need thicker glasses. I never have nor would I ever refer to lawyers a shysters.

I'm done here.

What a joke, you just changed it under, "occupation" in your profile.

It must be that ole ethics thing huh? Don't worry, I'm soon filing 3 ethics complaints against attorneys, but you would never be one of em.

Jib · December 13, 2004

you're confusing me with lawrocket.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

billvon · December 13, 2004

>give me a break - you wrote shyster in your profile.

This is your last warning. You cannot personally attack people EVEN IF YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE YOUR POINT. I don't care if they have "shyster" tatooed on their forehead - you can't call them a shyster. I don't care if you saw them handing out Nazi literature - you can't call them a Nazi.

Yes, it's sad that you can't 'call a spade a spade' (as another poster put it.) Unfortunately, some people on this board do not even have a basic level of respect for other people, and will bend any rule to get their attacks in. Thus the lack of flexibility in the rule.

lawrocket · December 13, 2004

Quote
you're confusing me with lawrocket.

Yes, he is. I'm the shyster who's listed as such in my profile.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

EBSB52 · December 13, 2004

Quote
Quote
you're confusing me with lawrocket.

Yes, he is. I'm the shyster who's listed as such in my profile.

My bad, dealt with in PM.

78RATS · December 13, 2004

my dicks bigger than all yalls. hahaha

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

jcd11235 · December 13, 2004

While the DA is on salary, people will only work so many hours a week for their salary over an extended period of time before they find a new job. If the volume of work increases, sooner or later another salaried employee must be added. Salaried employees often have support employees who work at an hourly wage. With an increase in work, those employees cost 50% more per hour, or, alternatively, new employees are hired. Whether it is a "hard" cost or a "soft" cost, there is a real associated cost for any court case, and when the death penalty is the DA's goal, those costs increase considerably.