Death Penalty: Economics

The death penalty in the United States has caused much controversy in terms of what rights we have in our government to take away or spare a life. Behind all of this controversy, there lies the question of whether or not it is cost effective to continue to imprison these death penalty cases or to just follow through with the prosecution and kill them. On this site below, it shows a specific portion dedicated just to the financial part of the death penalty in some of the states that says:

 

The financial effects of the death penalty:
-"A new study in California revealed that the cost of the death penalty in the state has been over $4 billion since 1978. Study considered pre-trial and trial costs, costs of automatic appeals and state habeas corpus petitions, costs of federal habeas corpus appeals, and costs of incarceration on death row. (Alarcon & Mitchell, 2011).
-In Maryland, an average death penalty case resulting in a death sentence costs approximately $3 million. The eventual costs to Maryland taxpayers for cases pursued 1978-1999 will be $186 million. Five executions have resulted. (Urban Institute, 2008).
-In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of incarceration. (Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003).
-Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000).
-The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. (Duke University, May 1993).
-In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).

The effects of the present financial crisis on the criminal justice system vary widely, but the common thread has been cutbacks in critical areas. In a report released in August of this year, the American Bar Association found that "the justice system in many parts of the United States is on the verge of collapse due to inadequate funding and unbalanced funding." The report went on to state that "the very notion of justice in the United States is threatened by a lack of adequate resources to operate the very system which has protected our rights for more than two centuries."

-New Jersey, for example, laid off more than 500 police officers in 1991. At the same time, it was implementing a death penalty which would cost an estimated $16 million per year, more than enough to hire the same number of officers at a salary of $30,000 per year. ·
-In Florida, a mid-year budget cut of $45 million for the Department of Corrections forced the early release of 3,000 inmates. Yet, by 1988 Florida had spent $57.2 million to accomplish the execution of 18 people. It costs six times more to execute a person in Florida than to incarcerate a prisoner for life with no parole.
-In contrast, Professors Richard Moran and Joseph Ellis estimated that the money it would take to implement the death penalty in New York for just five years would be enough to fund 250 additional police officers and build prisons for 6,000 inmates.
- Ten other states also reported early release of prisoners because of overcrowding and underfunding. -In Texas, the early release of prisoners has meant that inmates are serving only 20 percent of their sentences and re-arrests are common. On the other hand, Texas spent an estimated $183.2 million in just six years on the death penalty.
-Illinois built new prisons but does not have the funds to open them. It does, however, have the fourth largest death row in the country.
-Georgia's Department of Corrections lost over 900 positions in the past year while local counties have had to raise taxes to pay for death penalty trials."

Death Penalty: Cameron Todd Willingham of Texas

Cameron Todd Willingham

Report of Dr. Gerald Hurst

Texas Forensic Science Commission
The New Yorker Report

Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, was executed wrongfully in 2004 after allegedly starting a fire to his house, killing his three daughters. Due to his history of domestic violence it wasn't hard for the police to suspect him of this crime; and quickly after a Fire Marshall examined the scene Cameron was convicted and sentenced to death.  

It didn't help this man that even his own attorney openly admitted that he believed his client started the fire that killed his own family.

While Willingham was in prison evidence arose that he had "satanic images on his walls and was a sociopath" and when the jurors heard of this evidence it was the crowning factor in the final decision.

Killing his children would be his "crowning achievement as a psychopath".

With the Fire Marshal finding 20+ accelerants at the scene and multiple origin points it quickly became obvious that the fire was one of arson, and the only logical starter was Todd. With no motive and no true double check of evidence Cameron Todd was killed.

Quickly after being convicted he was thrust into loneliness, who would believe a "dangerous" man who killed his children? His neighbors reported that he watched his house burn and made no attempt to go inside and save his kids from their death, and this point, at the time, made the idea of arson very believable. Why save people who you were purposefully killing?

Though it was later determined that normal humans cannot force themselves into going into a fire, the human brain does not allow an individual to do so. Even if he tried to save them, which is indeterminable, he wouldn't have been able to because his own body wouldn't allow it.

His ex-wife was quick to jump into the court room and accuse him of the deaths; her children were dead and she knew it was him, after all why would an ex-wife say anything bad about her previous husband? Friends were quick to point fingers at him as he seemed to be calm and under control rather than distressed at the loss of his three daughters. No one bothered to take a second look at the "evidence" at that point, it was all word of mouth, someone had to be punished for taking three young girls from the earth.

He was executed and the death penalty in the case was "proven" to be the best route, until it wasn't.

Dr. Gerald Hurst stepped into the picture years after the execution to prove that Cameron Todd Willingham was an innocent man who was wrongfully convicted and murdered; he and many others often look back on this case when examining the death penalty.

One can never be sure that the right choice is being made, and if the death penalty is allowed, there is always room for error. A life sentence can be overturned but people cannot be brought back from the dead.

1994, Cameron Todd Willingham refused an offer and plead guilty to the murder of his children

In the end Cameron was pardoned, sadly this was six years after his death.

“This Court orders the exoneration of Cameron Todd Willingham for murdering his three daughters. In light of the overwhelming, credible, and reliable evidence presented by the Petitioners, this Court holds that the State of Texas wrongfully executed Cameron Todd Willingham.”

Drone attacks being covered up

The Air Force Times reports that the Air Force began publishing monthly data on airstrikes launched from remotely piloted aircraft in Afghanistan in October and made the statistics available in November, December and January. The statistics report for February contained an "empty space" where the data on drone strikes had previously been and reports from previous months had been scrubbed of drone strike data. Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Air Forces Central Command did not respond to a request for comment. Over the last decade of war, remotely piloted drone Predators and Reapers have become a critical weapon to gather intelligence and conduct airstrikes against terrorists or insurgents around the world. They have been used extensively on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and northern Africa. The White House on Thursday said President Obama does not have the authority to use a drone to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil if the citizen is not engaged in combat. Attorney General Eric Holder made the assertion in a letter to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who held up the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director amid claims that the administration could use drones to target Americans suspected of terrorism. I think we as Americans should know exactly what's going on in our country if our leaders are going to enforce drone attacks on u.s. citizens or other country's than its our right to know.

Proposed law in Arkansas about abortion.

Information, what stage the infant would be at.

Arkansas has passed a law, banning abortion at twelve weeks of pregnancy. This law was passed by the Republican legislature, over the veto of governor Mike Beebe, but the state senate voted to override his veto, as well as the house. Although this law contradicts supreme court decisions, which gave women basically 24 weeks of pregnancy before they could no longer have an abortion. With our constitution, it may or may not pass, it depends on the majority of people who are against abortion, and our king and queen's opinion on the matter. Although I'd like to think, if it is what the general public wants, it is possible. As an idea, I'm a little wishy washy, because I feel that in twelve weeks, it is true that the baby has developed far, there is brain activity occurring. Although, I don't know that a person could find out in time if they are pregnant, in 24 weeks, at least it's quiet fairly obvious. We need to study more in the matter what is going on with the unborn child, whether or not it is considered "alive" or has the capability to think and be aware. We also have to decide whether or not if we should be "playing god" in this matter.

arguments facts about drone attacks that have been going on and why. i dont support them do u?

It's frustrating to see how muddled the debate over drones has become. Some people are wondering why we're all so concerned over a new vehicle that delivers bombs, as opposed to planes. No, no, that's not it at all. Drones don't kill people, the U.S. government kills people. It's just a tool. The problem isn't the tool; the problem is how we are using it.
So, in order to clear up the confusion let me just state the three biggest problems with how we are using the drone program.
1. We have used drones to execute U.S. civilians without a trial. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, the government seems to be indicating he was a really important operational leader for al-Qaeda. Their evidence for that -- nothing. At least nothing they have presented to the public or any other branch of government. The old saying is that you could indict a ham sandwich, but apparently they couldn't indict Awlaki.
Does that mean our government couldn't produce any evidence at all on this supposed terrorist mastermind, or has such disdain for any other branch of government that they think it's beneath them to show a shred of evidence to a court before they order the execution of a U.S. citizen?
In the case of the other two U.S. citizens who were killed, including Awlaki's 16 year-old son who was struck in another bombing, the government refuses to say whether they meant to kill those citizens or if it was an accident. Shouldn't we at least know if assassinations of U.S. citizens are done on purpose or accidentally (by the all-knowing, all-wise executive branch)?
Finally, on this note, what a lot of the senators are frustrated by is that even the legal memos outlining why they think they have the right to do these extra-judicial killings are secret. Great, we're using secret law that justifies why the executive gets to execute citizens without any due process (and yes, due process is judicial process Eric Holder).
If you're not bothered by any of this, you should retake your civics class from high school because apparently you missed the whole point of this country, and really, all of western civilization.
2. Most of the drone strikes are signature strikes where we have no idea who we're killing. Really, you're in favor of this? This is so outlandishly immoral that it seems unbelievable. But the New York Times, among many other outlets, has confirmed that in fact we are dropping bombs from drones based on signature activity down below without having any idea who we are killing specifically.
This is why we sometimes bomb weddings. People in Afghanistan and Pakistan often bring weapons to weddings and they fire the guns in the air to celebrate. We see the "signature" of terrorists because there are many guns in the area and obliterate the entire wedding party. If you're comfortable with this, there's some chance you're a monster.
3. We often do double taps where we kill first-responders and the people trying to help the wounded. If you weren't a monster for agreeing with the above strategy, you certainly are if you agree with this one. Plus, a war criminal. This is one of the biggest war crimes there is. The other people who use this strategy often: al-Qaeda.
So, now do you really support these policies? Of course not, the great majority of Americans have no idea what we're doing with these drones. They think we're only targeting high level terrorists. In reality, only 2 percent of the strikes have hit high level al-Qaeda figures. That's why it's so important to shine a light on this issue.
Of course, there is one other thing, which is that most Democrats cannot get themselves to believe that the beloved Barack Obama would authorize things like this, so they just turn a deaf ear to it or try to make some sort of comical excuse for it. The reality is that he does do these things and that's why progressives who are paying attention have been so disgruntled with him. It's not like we didn't like the guy or vote for the guy; we're not like the conservatives who have Obama Derangement Syndrome and think he's a Muslim from another planet and oppose everything he does. No, we oppose him on this because it is clearly and unequivocally wrong.
Now you know. What you do with this information going forward is your own moral choice. If you can live with yourself by agreeing to these policies, then that's who you are. But if how we use these drones bothers you, then you have a moral responsibility to oppose these policies and let the president know, no matter who's team he's on.

You Can Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CenkUygur



In this description on how the drones are being used and why describes that our government isnt really doing their jobs. They may think tht they are making the right decisons and the right people for the right reason....well thats what they want us to beleive, And in all honesty after putting alot of thought into it and doing some research i am against the random use of drones being used to kill american citizens I honestly think if the government has any thought of someone being a teorist or even causing a problem tryn that could put america into danger or any threat, I think tht the government has enough fire power and enough people so tht they could go into people's homes and figure it out from there even if its putting them into an enterment camp. idk maybe im just cruel lol but I think tht if the government is so worried then they should stop letting people into our contry and quit giving them same rights tht we have deport them if their so worried about it but i think the government is doing all of this just for shits and giggles. o'well we live in a twisted society and there is really anything tht we can do unless there is a big enough patition filled out and given to the presidant himself but i doubt anyone will take the time or even have the money to travel around and get a large enough amount of people to sign it.

now this is the presidents argument on why he and the government have the right to use drones to attack american citizens on United States soil. in my oppinion i think its bullshit and tht Hiialry Clinton WOULD do a better job in the office in replace of obamma.
Never wanted him as president.

(CNN) -- Since 9/11, the United States has increasingly relied on drones to kill its enemies and to chip away at terrorism around the globe. Drone warfare has always been controversial. But it became virtually sensational during the heated discussion over John Brennan's nomination to be CIA chief.

Responding to a question stemming from that discussion, Attorney General Eric Holder said this week that he wouldn't rule out the possibility of a drone strike against Americans on U.S. soil. But he said the administration wasn't planning on such a strike and would use the option only under extreme circumstances.

Holder futher clarified the administration's stance Thursday with a brief letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who had staged a 13-hour filibuster of Brennan's confirmation.

"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' " Holder wrote. "The answer to that question is no."

CNN Explains: Drones

Is it okay for U.S. to target citizens?

Rand Paul: I'm happy with WH letter

Did pilot spot a drone at JFK?

A to Z: The drone program

That satisfied Paul, who had ended his filibuster and allowed Brennan's confirmation to go on. But it hasn't ended the discussion about the use of drones over the United States.

What's President Obama's argument?

For some time, the administration has fervently defended the drone program in general, boasting that it has helped decimate al Qaeda and saved the lives of troops that might otherwise be involved in ground attacks.

The United States has carried out 349 "CIA drone strikes" in Pakistan and 61 in Yemen, according to Washington-based nonpartisan think tank The New America Foundation.

When it comes to drone strikes in Indiana or New York, the administration insists the unmanned machines could be used when an imminent threat to the United States is clear. Drone strikes on U.S. soil could be necessary when capture isn't feasible, the administration says. Dealing with a 9/11 or a Pearl Harbor-style attack -- or one that seems very likely -- could justify a domestic drone strike, Holder said.

What law or precedent might support their argument?

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said there is no law on drone strikes. "Police officers use weapons on American citizens all the time," he said. "This is just another weapon."

The Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces. But that's not in the United States.

Again, there is other documentation about drone use against U.S. citizens abroad. Consider a Justice Department memo, given to select members of Congress last year, that says the U.S. government can use lethal force against American citizens overseas who are operational leaders of al Qaeda or its affiliates.

One high-profile example of a U.S. citizen killed in a strike overseas is Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric born and educated in the United States. A drone killed him in Yemen in 2011.

Who are the most vocal opponents?

The pushback against the administration has united unlikely bedfellows.

Republicans and Democrats are both dubious of drones hovering over Americans.

But while Paul stopped the Senate's work cold to express his displeasure, the GOP isn't standing as one over anti-terrorism tactics. Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham assailed Paul's filibuster.

"All I can say is that I don't think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people," McCain, R-Arizona, said on the Senate floor Thursday.

At one point in his filibuster, Paul said there would be nothing stopping the United States from dropping a missile on Jane Fonda, who actively protested the Vietnam War in the 1970s.

McCain, who admitted that Fonda wasn't his "favorite American," was peeved by Paul's argument.

"Somehow to allege that the United States of America -- our government -- will drop a drone Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda, that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous," he sniped.

An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer called Obama the "judge, jury and executioner" in the matter, and said he agreed with Paul.

What are the political overtones here?

The debate, in a larger way, is about the struggle between the executive and legislative branches and which wields authority in such matters.

There are also questions about how the issue might affect the next presidential election, when Obama's two terms will be up. Paul has hinted that he may run in 2016. The next president will probably, at least until challenged, assume the same authority Obama has regarding drone strikes.

But Micah Zenko with the Council on Foreign Relations, an expert on drones and terrorism, cautions against too many predictions.

"This is such a fast-moving issue, and many parts are still being decided," he said.

"But I would add that if you look at how the topic played out in the last election, there was one question on drones in the third debate, and both candidates thought about it for 10 seconds and agreed they were great," he said. "Maybe next time, it will take 20 seconds before they say that."

What's the larger issue at stake?

Drones are becoming more common in general, and technology cannot be stopped, experts say. Controlling the technology and its capabilities will be incredibly difficult. So that will make the idea of transparency even more important.

There has been "a means of dealing with imminent threat in this country -- it's the police, a time-honored way of dealing with the guy who comes into Congress with a grenade launcher," said Tom Junod, an Esquire magazine writer who has written about Obama and the drone program. "We wouldn't be talking about this if we didn't suddenly have this technology ability of taking out anybody we wish.

"It's the technology that has extended the arm of the law and executive attention."

The question for Americans is how far they want the president's arm to reach.

can we call a revote on presidentcy? if so what do we have to do?

  

THE UNITED KINGDOM OF WONDERLAND. How laws are passed.

                     THE UNITED KINGDOM OF WONDERLAND               
                                                                    
LAWS; The people of the kingdom are given the opportunity to offer suggestions to the king and queen in terms of new laws and concerns that they may have for the kingdom. With the exception of slander against the king/queen and the government officials. Any law that is suggested by the people is then taken in concideration and talked about between the king and queen. And the laws that the king and queen have decided upon are then looked over and talked through for the final decision and the acceptance of the new law with the head of parliment.So the parliment may make sure that the laws will have the peoples best interest at hand.They are then put up for a majority vote between the parliment itself.

United Kingdom of Wonderland

In the late 16th century King Chaz came to power as the new King of the United Kingdom of Wonderland. He married shortly after to his new Queen Kayla. After their head of parliament passed away King Chaz sought out a new one, he appointed his old friend Starr as the new head of parliament. The Queen decided who would be the ambassador and chose a young woman named Marissa. The ambassador then chose the person with whom she felt would be trustworthy to handle their country's wealth, she chose a woman named Lindsay for Treasurer. The king was in charge of selecting a leader for their military, since Miki was already in charge he kept her as head of their military.

Blog Assignment 4 due March 14th

6.  The in-class nation simulation has started.  What's working?  What can we (Oden or I) do better?

What's Working
Right now things that are working would be the groups themselves, it seems that people are getting along well and that communication between group member's isn't a problem. Getting the work done by the Thursday at 11:59 pm deadline doesn't seem to be too difficult either.

What isn't Working
I feel like the game needs to be less emotional for Odin, it is hard to ask questions and get a straight response rather than an opinion; though that may just be part of the game. Also the structure is confusing, trying to figure out what needs done now is difficult because we are told everything at once, and then told to disregard certain things until a later date. It's hard to figure out what is actually going to be the grade the following week. We are given so much information and not really told what is important right now, in the actual class. It would be much easier if we had a guide saying what will be done each class and what is due the next, or at least were told more clearly these details. We are not mind readers so it is difficult to prioritize everything that we are told and that is expected of us.

Bill of Rights

Right to Own Property...
that is obtained fairly through payment, trade, barter, or gift. Property can be seized with fair parliament vote and just reasoning. During times of war all homes are available to be used to house members of the military as follows; 1 member of family living in household=1 member of military, 2 member of family living in household=1 member of military, 3 member of family living in household=2 member of military, 4 member of family living in household=2 member of military, 5 member of family living in household=3 member of military, 6 member of family living in household=3 member of military, and so on and so forth, always rounding the troop number up when family has and odd number. Property will be taxed by square footage; if taxes are not paid the property can be seized by the government at any point in time.

Right to Own Weaponry...
to be used only in self defense when intent is obvious; if death occurs trial will be held, even in cases of self defense.

Right to a Hearing...
if under suspicion of crime, and accused of said crime the people will have a right to a hearing under parliament  with the King's word being final

Right to Freedom from Slavery...
the people have the right to freedom from slavery; e.i. being property. The people have the right to bring to trial cases in which slavery may or may not exist.

Right to Marriage...
the people have the right to marry who they choose. Marriage is not defined as between a man and a women, it is between two consensual people, man/women, women/women, man/man, etc. The marriage as long as it is legally preformed, will be acknowledged as legitimate.

Right to Vote for Parliament...
the people may vote for parliament, the number of seats is based on the overall population, votes will only count once. Individuals may vote for who ever they choose and at any point can bring trial to the King if the courts have misdoings. The King holds the right to impeach any parliament member after consulting the parliament and bringing forward proof on misdoings.

This document is a living document and may be altered at any time at the discretion of the government.

Court and tax systems of The United Kingdom of Wanderland

The court system of The United Kingdom of Wanderland relies solely on the king and Queen (Whom inherit the throne through bloodline), to create laws and policies for the country. The laws and policies of which are created then must be regulated through parliament (checks and balances) to be put into affect. Parliament may veto any law or policy if found unconstitutional. The Queen appoints an ambassador based on his/her social experience who will then monitor public relations based on needs of parliament and the throne. The county taxes its distribution centers for all goods at the rate of 4% with an exception of a 2% rate on water and consumables. All imported goods are taxed at the rate of 8%. Property is taxed by sq/ft in.