http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/14/318159/perrys-235-executions-cost-texas-taxpayers-over-700-million/

The man's tough on crime - on your dime...

Whether you kill the criminal of put him away until he dies of old age the main objective is to keep the bastard off the streets and keep him from doing what he did. Life without parole seems to work well without the cost.

Life without parole should apply in the rarest of rare cases (basically incorrigible serial killers). The "normal" sentence for premeditated murder should be something like 20-life -- trust the parole board to decide whether the criminal continues to be a danger to society.

i.e. Manson is eligible for parole, but no one has granted such a thing to him!

I am talking about capital crimes that would warrant the death penalty. If the crime calls for life w/o parole or death and you want the criminal to suffer give him w/o parole. I can't think of anything worse that spending 40-50 years in the slammer with the dregs of society.

Point being, I think that life without parole is too frequently applied in this country. Things like 3-strikes laws that allow for life without parole for three non-murder felonies.

Personally, I'd abolish it even for murder, other than for REPEAT murderers. I'd trust the parole board to decide whether someone is rehabilitated after 20-30 years. A person can be very different at age 20 and age 40 -- no sense in keeping them locked up if they really did change.

You should move to Boston you'd love it!

Google "John "Jack" Maguire"

I like Boston a lot, nice town, have quite a few friends up there.

I read about the Maguire case -- but just because 0.001% of felons released by a parole board might kill again doesn't mean that everyone should be locked up for life under unduly harsh sentencing rules. Generally, I trust the parole board and/or governor to make a responsible decision in view of the fact that people MAY be able to change and rehabilitate themselves in a few decades. Note that parole shouldn't be guaranteed, but it should be an option if the criminal reforms himself.

If you execute murders, the rate of repeat killing drops to 0.0%. A nice round number.

__________________
MB-less

Yeah you seem like a very trusting sort of guy, I understand.

Nope, just a practical person who realizes that there's no need to pay through the nose to lock up people who may have reformed for 40-50 years if 20 years serves the same purpose.

How does that work out when you execute an innocent person?

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Yeah probably based on all the experience you have with the criminals and the criminal justice system. Cool

Same, doesn't it? When an innocent person is dead they can't later kill people either.

Funny how a lot of countries without the death penalty OR life without parole have lower murder rates than the USA. And manage to survive without PAYING to keep ~1% of their populations locked up. Fortunately, some states are seeing reason on the matter, reducing minimum sentences, and actually closing prisons:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/nyregion/following-through-on-budget-state-will-close-seven-prisons.html

But the state murdered the innocent person, so there was a murder committed, just not by a criminal. It's all fun and games till you're the poor bastard in the Chair.