Has there been any recent movement to reinstate the death penalty in michigan?

[Newdetroit]

Michigan has not had the death penalty since the 1840's. I am actually against it. However, I had heard that there was a possible movement to bring it back to the books. Has anyone heard of this??? Also I would be interested in seeing what people's views are concerning whether our state should bring it back. I believe all of Europe has abolished it. Retribution and deterrence are the key reasons. Studies indicate that it has no deterrent effect. In addition 3-5% of innocent people are convincted in criminal cases. So I am interested to see what people have to say about the issue...if they favor it and/or heard about it coming back..

[Danny]

Has there been any recent movement to reinstate the death penalty in michigan?

No! The law has spoken. People who commit murder in Michigan will spend ENTERNITY in prison.

[iheartthed]

There is enough political ammunition on the table now with just the economy, so a debate on the death penalty wasn't necessary to stir up any candidate's base this election year... But I wouldn't be surprised to see it by 2020.

[gnome]

The Death Penalty is against our state constitution.

This year we will be asked if we should re-write our constitution. We are asked this question every 16 yrs and have collectively decided to hold a Constitutional Convention approx every 50 yrs.

I suspect that the voters will elect to hold a Constitutional Convention and you can bet the farm that the pro-death folks will fight like hell to get that on our Constitution.

[56packman]

Statistically it is not a deterent, this has been proven over and over again. It is true that once the state kills an offender they can't go and do that crime again, but in states like Texas, where they take their executions personally, it's just about biblical-informed vengence. Each execution costs the state more than keeping a murderer in prison for the rest of their life in legal costs. Michigan actually has this one right, and can spend the limited money and time on better pursuits.

[Jimaz]

The death penalty is simply unnecessary.

[DetroitPole]

I was curious, so I looked up what countries actually allow the death penalty:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

We're in some pretty bad company. Not many of those regimes are very nice people. Some of the only legitimate guys on that list are Commonwealth Islands, which I suspect simply never took it off the books because they're so small and deal with it almost never.

[Gistok]

Seems like 1/4 of the countries that still have the death penalty are on the USA Caribbean cruise island hopping itinerary....

[MCP-001]

There was an attempt to place it back on the ballot five years ago after this incident.

Sadly, it failed.

Now we have situations like this little piece of work, who is now entitled to three hots and a cot, free for the rest of his days, thanks to the the bleeding hearts who don't feel that its "right" to put him and his partner-in-crime down.

And I would worry too much about the con-con becoming a factor.

It isn't going to pass next month.

[Detroitnerd]

Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up. The people who are for the death penalty are for it for largely emotional reasons, maybe from watching too many Hollywood films. You see quite a lot of anger, disdain and hatred from folks who want to cheer on a state-sponsored "revenge killing." A few generations ago, these would be the ringleaders of a lynch mob.

And, naturally, the people who are against capital punishment are best informed on the actual mechanics of death penalties, approve of due process, and know that the death penalty has no deterrence value whatsoever.

[mittengal]

I thought Michigan used to have the gas chamber. I'm for execution for the worst of the worse, like those who torture their victims.

[MCP-001]

Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up. The people who are for the death penalty are for it for largely emotional reasons, maybe from watching too many Hollywood films. You see quite a lot of anger, disdain and hatred from folks who want to cheer on a state-sponsored "revenge killing." A few generations ago, these would be the ringleaders of a lynch mob.

Emotional?

Hardly, it's more economics.

I find that the price of a .45 bullet or running a 6500 watt generator, far cheaper than R&B for 30-40 years. It also frees up jail space for someone else. A win-win in my book.

And, naturally, the people who are against capital punishment are best informed on the actual mechanics of death penalties, approve of due process, and know that the death penalty has no deterrence value whatsoever.

Last time I checked, the recidivism rate of those punished under the death penalty was zero.

Care to explain that?

[Johnlodge]

Emotional?

Hardly, it's more economics.

I find that the price of a .45 bullet or running a 6500 watt generator, far cheaper than R&B for 30-40 years. It also frees up jail space for someone else. A win-win in my book.

Completely incorrect.

Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice [[2008)

"The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California's current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually."

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present [[death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Source:
Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice [[June 30, 2008)

Los Angeles Times Study Finds California Spends $250 Million per Execution [[2005)

Key Points:

• The California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. [[This figure does not take into account additional court costs for post-conviction hearings in state and federal courts, estimated to exceed several million dollars.)
• With 11 executions spread over 27 years, on a per execution basis, California and federal taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each execution.
• It costs approximately $90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row, than in the general prison population or $57.5 million annually.
• The Attorney General devotes about 15% of his budget, or $11 million annually to death penalty cases.
• The California Supreme Court spends $11.8 million on appointed counsel for death row inmates.
• The Office of the State Public Defender and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center spend a total of $22.3 million on defense for indigent defendants facing death.
• The federal court system spends approximately $12 million on defending death row inmates in federal court.
• No figures were given for the amount spent by the offices of County District Attorneys on the prosecution of capital cases, however these expenses are presumed to be in the tens of millions of dollars each year.

Source: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/...+ever+executed

[Detroitnerd]

Emotional?

Hardly, it's more economics.

I find that the price of a .45 bullet or running a 6500 watt generator, far cheaper than R&B for 30-40 years. It also frees up jail space for someone else. A win-win in my book.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. That swaggering, tough-talking attitude that is ignorant of the facts: It costs much more to execute somebody than to incarcerate them for life. In short, for all your emoting, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Last time I checked, the recidivism rate of those punished under the death penalty was zero.

Care to explain that?

Yes, you let the state kill the innocent with the guilty together, and the innocent and the guilty can commit no further crimes. That's what happens when you lash out in emotion without considering the consequences.

[MCP-001]

Completely incorrect.

Source:
Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice [[June 30, 2008)

I hope you forgive my skepticism about a report produced by a group who is "one of the largest nonprofit advocacy organizations in the nation dedicated to the abolition of capital punishment through public education; grassroots and political organizing; original research; media outreach; local, state and nationwide coalition building; and the education of religious, legislative and civic leaders about the death penalty and its alternatives."

Source: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/...+ever+executed

Hmmmm, California? California? California?

Aren't those the same people who were asking the federal government to bail out their ability to govern themselves not too long ago?

[Johnlodge]

I hope you forgive my skepticism about a report produced by a group who is "one of the largest nonprofit advocacy organizations in the nation dedicated to the abolition of capital punishment through public education; grassroots and political organizing; original research; media outreach; local, state and nationwide coalition building; and the education of religious, legislative and civic leaders about the death penalty and its alternatives."




Hmmmm, California? California? California?

Aren't those the same people who were asking the federal government to bail out their ability to govern themselves not too long ago?

Cool, still waiting for your sources to either refute the information I've provided or substantiate your own. Meanwhile I'll provide more to back up mine.

After decades of moral arguments reaching biblical proportions, after long, twisted journeys to the nation's highest court and back, the death penalty may be abandoned by several states for a reason having nothing to do with right or wrong:
Money.
Turns out, it is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them, according to a series of recent surveys. Tens of millions of dollars cheaper, politicians are learning, during a tumbling recession when nearly every state faces job cuts and massive deficits.

Source and more reading: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/

[MCP-001]

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. That swaggering, tough-talking attitude that is ignorant of the facts: It costs much more to execute somebody than to incarcerate them for life. In short, for all your emoting, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

You're applying emotion to the argument, not me.

I can buy a case of ammunition for about $350.

If I want to go the reload route, I can go as cheap as $150.

That's a lot of dead criminals.

Yes, you let the state kill the innocent with the guilty together, and the innocent and the guilty can commit no further crimes. That's what happens when you lash out in emotion without considering the consequences.

No, I let the state determine the guilt of the parties accused in a court of law and then carry out the sentence immediately after conviction.

Those states going broke are doing so because of criminals clogging up the system with frivolous appeals.

[Johnlodge]

You're applying emotion to the argument, not me.

I can buy a case of ammunition for about $350.

If I want to go the reload route, I can go as cheap as $150.

That's a lot of dead criminals.

Ah, I get it now. Intelligent debate isn't your strong suit. I'll be one my way, then.

[MCP-001]

Cool, still waiting for your sources to either refute the information I've provided or substantiate your own. Meanwhile I'll provide more to back up mine.



Source and more reading: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/

Yeah, and my personal fav was this:

"California's legendarily slow appeals system, which produces an average wait of nearly 20 years from conviction to fatal injection — the longest in the nation. Of the nine convicted killers McCartin sent to death row, only one has died. Not by execution, but from a heart attack in custody.


"Every one of my cases is bogged up in the appellate system," said McCartin, who retired in 1993 after 15 years on the bench.

"It's a waste of time and money," said the 82-year-old, self-described right-wing Republican whose sonorous voice still commands attention. "The only thing it does is prolong the agony of the victims' families.""


All the more reason to put them down right after conviction like I mentioned above.

[MCP-001]

Ah, I get it now. Intelligent debate isn't your strong suit. I'll be one my way, then.

I posted facts and included links to back them up.

If that isn't "intelligent debate" then define what is?

[Detroitnerd]

You're applying emotion to the argument, not me.

Are you telling me that your tough-talking swagger about capping criminals isn't emotional? If not, then it's just plain antidemocratic and stupid.

I can buy a case of ammunition for about $350.

If I want to go the reload route, I can go as cheap as $150.

That's a lot of dead criminals.

And, probably a lot of dead innocent people too. That doesn't seem to trouble you. In your emotional zeal to kill "criminals," you'd be killing a fair amount of people who did nothing, as the Innocence Project has proved. You would do well to do a little research and find how many innocent people are jailed -- and you would kill.

No, I let the state determine the guilt of the parties accused in a court of law and then carry out the sentence immediately after conviction.

Those states going broke are doing so because of criminals clogging up the system with frivolous appeals.

Oh, so now you've changed your story a bit. [[It's the APPEALS now). Nope. You're still wrong. But I can see you're the type of person who's unwilling to let the facts get in the way of a good, old-fashioned lynching. You want your "justice" right away, regardless of whether people were actually guilty of anything, or whether it's justice at all! In other words, lets not let the facts get in the way of a killing that makes us feel good.

This is not emotional? This is your idea of reasoning? Then, sir, you are a fool.

[jt1]

MCP-001, I recommend you review this website a little bit. Consider the fact that you are advocating killing a number of these people since the courts decided their guilt.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

[EastsideAl]

I was curious, so I looked up what countries actually allow the death penalty:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

We're in some pretty bad company. Not many of those regimes are very nice people. Some of the only legitimate guys on that list are Commonwealth Islands, which I suspect simply never took it off the books because they're so small and deal with it almost never.

But Michigan is historically in much better company.

Michigan was the first jurisdiction in the English-speaking world to abolish the death penalty, and one of the first in the world. Although there were a few executions in territorial days, Michigan has not executed anyone since statehood in 1837. And capital punishment has been illegal here since 1846. In fact, the 1963 state Constitution makes capital punishment unconstitutional in Michigan

[DetroitPole]

You're applying emotion to the argument, not me.

I can buy a case of ammunition for about $350.

If I want to go the reload route, I can go as cheap as $150.

That's a lot of dead criminals.



No, I let the state determine the guilt of the parties accused in a court of law and then carry out the sentence immediately after conviction.

Those states going broke are doing so because of criminals clogging up the system with frivolous appeals.

Easy there John Wayne. Maybe all the legal red tape of the United States isn't for you. I suggest you consult the list I posted to help you find a country that better suits your false bravado. Eritrea might be more your speed.

[oldredfordette]

I am so proud to live in a state that has no death penalty.