Retired Justice Stevens Wants to Amend the Constitution

[crashhelmet]

I found this today

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens Calls For Six New Constitutional Amendments

He's got some good ideas here, but I don't agree with, or really understand, them all.

1) I must've missed the ruling about the Supremacy Clause not applying to public officials.

2) This needs to be done before the elections later this year.

3) I had to read this twice to figure out what he meant, and I agree. End Citizens United.

4) Again, I never knew this was possible. Maybe i'm misunderstanding it.

5) I don't agree with this one. You could say it makes me a bad Christian, but I support the Death Penalty. There are people that have done enough egregious harm to others that they do not deserve to live.

6) I support this change in the aspect of gun ownership being a Right without any kind of education, certification, or regulation. People can still own guns as long as they train, certify, and register their weapons.

[Sleepwalker]

Deserving something is no indicator of a society's ability to deliver something- death penalty is going too far when our justice system is as flawed as it is. What pressing social need is fulfilled by it as opposed to life in prison?

[crashhelmet]

Yes, there are times when innocent people are executed, but the biggest flaws n our justice system is the fact that they're private corporations making money off those they incarcerate. They don't want to kill people if they don't have to

[Duelist925]

Yes, there are times when innocent people are executed, but the biggest flaws n our justice system is the fact that they're private corporations making money off those they incarcerate. They don't want to kill people if they don't have to

I would rather ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man die.

I do agree, though, that the privatized justice system is a serious source of many problems in the justice system

[Sleepwalker]

Yes, there are times when innocent people are executed, but the biggest flaws n our justice system is the fact that they're private corporations making money off those they incarcerate. They don't want to kill people if they don't have to

...what, so you'd rather execute than someone make a buck off running a prison?

[crashhelmet]

...what, so you'd rather execute than someone make a buck off running a prison?

If they are absolutely guilty? Yes. i'd take them straight from the courthouse to their execution. I wouldn't spend a single cent on feeding and boarding them.

[Gravekeeper]

If they are absolutely guilty? Yes. i'd take them straight from the courthouse to their execution. I wouldn't spend a single cent on feeding and boarding them.

Problem is executing them costs vastly more than incarcerating them. There is no argument at all for the death penalty aside from vengeance. It is not an effective deterrent, it costs millions of dollars and it runs the risk of murdering innocents.

All it does is stroke the base reptilian part of our brain that wants blood. -.-

[crashhelmet]

Problem is executing them costs vastly more than incarcerating them. There is no argument at all for the death penalty aside from vengeance. It is not an effective deterrent, it costs millions of dollars and it runs the risk of murdering innocents.

All it does is stroke the base reptilian part of our brain that wants blood. -.-

But what happens when the cost of incarceration exceeds the cost of execution? At what point does that happen? I'm sure it has to happen at some point. I'm sure the cost of executing Ted Bundy was a hell of a lot cheaper than his incarceration and 9 failed appeals.

[Andrew B]

One problem with that argument is that the appeals are considered part of the cost of the execution. Which is part of why it's considered less expensive for life imprisonment.

[HYHYBT]

I don't quite get what problem 1 is supposed to fix. 3 is great; in particular, it's better than going at it the other direction by an amendment saying "corporations are not people," which could potentially remove legitimate corporate rights without really fixing the campaign financing problem.

[Sleepwalker]

If they are absolutely guilty? Yes. i'd take them straight from the courthouse to their execution. I wouldn't spend a single cent on feeding and boarding them.

Our justice system isn't omniscient. How is one to determine who is 'absolutely guilty', and THEN how is one to determine that that absolutely guilty person deserves death while another absolutely guilty person deserves prison? Sentences are not perfectly, equally applied any more than convictions are. You're mixing fantasy with reality here.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm sure it has to happen at some point. I'm sure the cost of executing Ted Bundy was a hell of a lot cheaper than his incarceration and 9 failed appeals.

Actually no, it doesn't happen at any point. Thats sort of the problem. The cost of death row incarceration is 2-3 times higher than the cost of normal incarceration and they, on average, remain on death row for around 14.8 years. The cost of prosecuting and appealing death row cases is typically 40-80% higher or more than life without parole cases. Thus the cost of killing a death row inmate easily exceeds the cost of locking him up until he dies.

If you look at zap happy Texas, any given death row case costs them well over 2 million dollars. Comparatively, keeping someone in prison until they die costs less than 1/3rd that. Assuming an average of 50ish years in prison.

So again, there is literally no benefit to the death penalty except reptilian vengeance. -.-

[Hyena Dandy]

Yes, if someone is absolutely guilty, and so remorseless and violent that any possibility of his or her safety is a public safety issue, I'm perfectly content with their execution.

Thus, when our courts are capable of telepathy to know the minds of killers, precognitive powers to know that not killing them will bring death, and clairvoyance to know that there's no possible chance that anything else could have happened, I will advocate returning the death penalty. As it stands, the nation's psychics are not yet up to the task.

[crashhelmet]

Actually no, it doesn't happen at any point. Thats sort of the problem. The cost of death row incarceration is 2-3 times higher than the cost of normal incarceration and they, on average, remain on death row for around 14.8 years. The cost of prosecuting and appealing death row cases is typically 40-80% higher or more than life without parole cases. Thus the cost of killing a death row inmate easily exceeds the cost of locking him up until he dies.

If you look at zap happy Texas, any given death row case costs them well over 2 million dollars. Comparatively, keeping someone in prison until they die costs less than 1/3rd that. Assuming an average of 50ish years in prison.

So again, there is literally no benefit to the death penalty except reptilian vengeance. -.-

GK, I think we're misunderstanding each other here. It appears you're including the cost of incarceration before execution in your argument. I'm not. I was looking at the cost of the execution itself. I'm saying execute them the same day they're convicted, if absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt guilty.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Comparatively, keeping someone in prison until they die costs less than 1/3rd that. Assuming an average of 50ish years in prison.

Of course then you do get into the whole quandry of, "is prison itself providing adequate meals, protection, and services to render it not cruel and unusual?" If you added those costs, would you still see that delta in costs.

Not suggesting "Go Death!", just saying society cheaps out on prisoners because they can. If we fixed what was wrong with minimum and maximum security prisons, I'm not sure those costs would be as out of line.