Italian inmates seek death penalty

[Bounty]

Hundreds of prisoners serving life sentences in Italy have called on President Giorgio Napolitano to bring back the death penalty.

Their request was published as a letter in the daily newspaper La Repubblica.

Italy has almost 1,300 prisoners serving life terms, of whom 200 have served more than 20 years.

Italy has been at the forefront of the fight against capital punishment and recently lobbied the UN Security Council to table a moratorium on it.

But at home some of the country's longest serving prisoners want the death penalty re-introduced.

'Light into shadows'

The letter they sent to President Napolitano came from a convicted mobster, Carmelo Musumeci, a 52-year-old who has been in prison for 17 years.

It was co-signed by 310 of his fellow lifers.

Musumeci said he was tired of dying a little bit every day.

We want to die just once, he said, and "we are asking for our life sentence to be changed to a death sentence".

It was a candid letter written by a man who, from within his cell, has tried hard to change his life.

He has passed his high school exams and now has a degree in law. But his sentence, he says, has transformed the light into shadows.

He told the president his future was the same as his past, killing the present and removing every hope.

'Need for change'

Italy abolished the death penalty after World War II.

Under current laws, prisoners serving life can obtain the right to brief periods of release after 10 years and conditional release after 26 years of good conduct.

The Communist Refoundation party's senator, Maria Luisa Boccia, has proposed draft legislation to abolish the life sentence and replace it with a maximum sentence of 30 years.

The president has spoken many times about the need to change the sentencing regime.

But in his response to the letter, he said it was now for parliament and the government to deal with the prisoners' request.

So, in other words, anyone saying life imprisonment is somehow a "less punishing" punishment than the death penalty is full of shit.

[Crown]

So, in other words, anyone saying life imprisonment is somehow a "less punishing" punishment than the death penalty is full of shit.

Err .... I have no idea who/what or indeed where (and that is how confused I am by your witty one liner when reconciled with the cited article) that statement has to do with anything, and since I really don't have the luxury of 24/7 Internet access, I might be accidently starting off a flamewar that I have to abandon for a bit but here goes;

If you were arguing the old capital punishment arguement, and you take the position of the afirmative - a Texas special for all inmates (a characature, I know, but you set the tone) - then I have to ask, did you read the article, like at all?

To begin with, the Italian legal system allows for brief periods of releas after 10 years inprisonment, and after 26 years conditional release, if criterion for good behaivour have been met. Now this gentleman has been in prison for 17 years so (doing the math in my head here, so I could get it wrong due to the big numbers ... cross your fingers for me) in 9 years time he can actually be released under house arrest (or whatever the conditional release intails)!

Wow! The inhumanity of it all! Alllowing them out if they prove they've reformed their ways!

But wait Bob - the article goes even better! It even mentions that the Italian Parliament is discussing the possibility of capping a life sentence at 30 years, meaning that they can get a SECOND chance at life, good God! Those devilish and sadistic fiends!

Another little salient fact that might have missed your attention, is that this particular inmate managed to - in his time in jail - complete High School and get a Law degree (yes, I know, another Ambulance chaser, but honestly it aint that bad), i.e. improve on himself from what he was was before he got thrown in the slammer; an illiterate mafia boss thug (although this supposes that he has acrually also reformed from his criminal ways, otherwise he would now be a literate mafia boss thug, but given we aren't given a lot of details about him, it can go either way). *shock* The cruelity of it all!

He's using his new found literary awareness to draw attention to what are probably rough times in prison, with the hope of maybe improving his lot.



Or he could have been given the death penalty .

My god, the stupid. It just fucking writes its self.




Well, time's up! Gotta go catch my train, good night folks!

[Big Phil]

I recall seeing a similar topic in a thread recently, about how imprisonment was a pretty horrible punishment, despite everybody assuming it's more human than physical torture or the death penalty. While I don't support the death penalty (too many opportunities for bias and fuck-ups), imprisonment seems like a pointlessly harsh sentence for many crimes, when restitution and/or severe beatings might be more effective.

[Bounty]

If you were arguing the old capital punishment arguement, and you take the position of the afirmative - a Texas special for all inmates (a characature, I know, but you set the tone) - then I have to ask, did you read the article, like at all?

The classic argument pro-death penalty is that lifetime imprisonment is some sort of luxurious life at the expense of the tax payer. This, if anything, proves that a lifetime imprisonment is a punishment, not a life of carefree vacationing - but a punishment that at least allows, as you said, for the inmates to make themselves useful, or for a wrongful sentence to be repealed.

[CaptJodan]

But wait Bob - the article goes even better! It even mentions that the Italian Parliament is discussing the possibility of capping a life sentence at 30 years, meaning that they can get a SECOND chance at life, good God! Those devilish and sadistic fiends!

Which is a part that kind of bothers me. Can we assume that the government can still issue many life sentences on top of one another for particularly grevious offenses that actually SHOULD keep those who should never see the light of day again locked up for good? Because I'm sorry, but there are some people that should not ever be let back into the general populace.

[MKSheppard]

The classic argument pro-death penalty is that lifetime imprisonment is some sort of luxurious life at the expense of the tax payer.

You forgot "life" doesn't really mean life. More like 20 years.

[wolveraptor]

The classic argument pro-death penalty is that lifetime imprisonment is some sort of luxurious life at the expense of the tax payer.

You forgot "life" doesn't really mean life. More like 20 years.

Does that really change anything? The quality of the time spent there is unrelated to the amount of time spent there. Bounty was addressing the former. You talked about the latter. So no, he didn't forget anything. You just forgot how to distinguish between a red-herring and a legitimate retort.

[Adrian Laguna]

The classic argument pro-death penalty is that lifetime imprisonment is some sort of luxurious life at the expense of the tax payer.

You forgot "life" doesn't really mean life. More like 20 years.

Read the dammed article:
"Italy has almost 1,300 prisoners serving life terms, of whom 200 have served more than 20 years."

[Singular Intellect]

So, in other words, anyone saying life imprisonment is somehow a "less punishing" punishment than the death penalty is full of shit.

I've never advocated the death penalty as "greater punishment" than life imprisonment.

As far as I'm concerned, 'punishment' is utterly irrelevent. The death penalty is a means of eliminating threats to society, and doing it cheaply. It's like putting down a rabid animal that has attacked people. People largely don't complain about that, even though any half hearted evaluation would indicate a human predator is enormously more dangerous. But no of course, human beings are so fucking special that even the disgusting monsters that barely register as human that make the most rabid animal look harmless must be 'kept alive'.

The resources for keeping inmates fed, housed, entertained and fit would be much better spent on, say, starving and homeless kids in the world.

Note: I'm only referring to serious offenders irrefuteably guilty of being dangerous threats to society.

[wolveraptor]

I've, heard, however, that the cost of death penalties trials is greater than the cost of feeding and housing the inmates for the rest of their lives.

[Singular Intellect]

I've, heard, however, that the cost of death penalties trials is greater than the cost of feeding and housing the inmates for the rest of their lives.

Irrelevent. The cost of keeping an individual dead is nothing compared to the cost of keeping an individual alive.

The bias in costs of specific trials just further shows that the justice system needs significant improvement (whether that's practical, possible or not is another issue). Essentially, it will expend more or less effort in finding individuals guilty or innocent depending on the potential punishment (or how much money the parties concerned have). A completely and utterly retarded system. Instead, the seriousness of the actual crime should dictate the effort expended in finding the guilty party and dealing with it.

Punishment is a seperate issue, and eliminating a threat to society permanently will always be far cheaper than supporting it for a lifetime.

[TheDarkling]

Punishment is a seperate issue, and eliminating a threat to society permanently will always be far cheaper than supporting it for a lifetime.

If you are willing to dispense with the extra costs (involved in pre-trial, trial and appeals process) and just take them out back 5 minutes after the verdict comes in.

As the US does it today however it actually costs more to execute somebody than it would to lock them up forever (In Kansas it costs $500,000 more per case on average).

In that study it was found that pre-trial and trial costed on average $630,000 compared to a total life imprisonment (the entire trial process and the upkeep over their incarceration) cost of $740,000.

So even taking them straight out back wouldn't be a huge saving.

People wanting to justify the death penalty need to look somewhere other than the economic as the facts are clearly not in their favour unless the system is substantially overhauled (with the inherent risk that more innocent people will get executed).

[MKSheppard]

Read the dammed article:
"Italy has almost 1,300 prisoners serving life terms, of whom 200 have served more than 20 years."

No you read the goddamn article:

Under current laws, prisoners serving life can obtain the right to brief periods of release after 10 years and conditional release after 26 years of good conduct.

and then later

The Communist Refoundation party's senator, Maria Luisa Boccia, has proposed draft legislation to abolish the life sentence and replace it with a maximum sentence of 30 years.

[Singular Intellect]

Punishment is a seperate issue, and eliminating a threat to society permanently will always be far cheaper than supporting it for a lifetime.

If you are willing to dispense with the extra costs (involved in pre-trial, trial and appeals process) and just take them out back 5 minutes after the verdict comes in.

If the person is irrefuteably guilty, why not? I don't see appeal processes for animals known to be human killers. They are dealt with, quickly and efficiently.

But I keep forgetting most people are deluded and think humans (apparently including the ones we'd barely consider such) are special for no good reason.

As the US does it today however it actually costs more to execute somebody than it would to lock them up forever (In Kansas it costs $500,000 more per case on average).

In that study it was found that pre-trial and trial costed on average $630,000 compared to a total life imprisonment (the entire trial process and the upkeep over their incarceration) cost of $740,000.

So even taking them straight out back wouldn't be a huge saving.

A hundred and ten thousand dollars is a lot of food for needy people. Any savings is a good thing, and could be put to product use.

Could someone kindly point out why we need to keep dangerous criminals alive? "It's not right to kill people" is not an answer, that's a moral issue. Morality is subjective, and I don't see the difference in destroying an unacceptably dangerous animal threat to society, human or otherwise.

I can think of absolutely no reason whatsoever to keep a useless and dangerous criminal alive when the funds necessary to do so can go to far more productive (and moral in my estimation) ends.

People wanting to justify the death penalty need to look somewhere other than the economic as the facts are clearly not in their favour unless the system is substantially overhauled (with the inherent risk that more innocent people will get executed).

I already admitted the system is flawed (probably will always be so).

However I'd like to hear the logical justification for why we need to keep guilty and dangerous humans alive and cared for rather than dealing with them like we do with any other dangerous animal predator. One can easily point out a human predator is vastly more dangerous within society, and for that, they get creature comforts the rest of us have to work our asses off for.

Note: I feel the need to point out I'm not against rehabilitation of criminals and reincorperating them into society as productive members if at all possible. I want to make it clear I'm talking about those people that are considered beyond that possibility.

[Crown]

If you were arguing the old capital punishment arguement, and you take the position of the afirmative - a Texas special for all inmates (a characature, I know, but you set the tone) - then I have to ask, did you read the article, like at all?

The classic argument pro-death penalty is that lifetime imprisonment is some sort of luxurious life at the expense of the tax payer. This, if anything, proves that a lifetime imprisonment is a punishment, not a life of carefree vacationing - but a punishment that at least allows, as you said, for the inmates to make themselves useful, or for a wrongful sentence to be repealed.

Well, in that case, I look like a little bit of an ass, no?

[TheDarkling]

If the person is irrefuteably guilty, why not?

You need the legal system to determine who is guilty and who isn't.

I don't see appeal processes for animals known to be human killers. They are dealt with, quickly and efficiently.

Fair enough as long as you are willing to accept the trade off of more innocent people getting executed in order to save a buck for the tax payer.

A hundred and ten thousand dollars is a lot of food for needy people. Any savings is a good thing, and could be put to product use.

Then you could easily save five times the amount by abolishing the death penalty.

Could someone kindly point out why we need to keep dangerous criminals alive? "It's not right to kill people" is not an answer, that's a moral issue. Morality is subjective, and I don't see the difference in destroying an unacceptably dangerous animal threat to society, human or otherwise.

I explicitly stated I was doing with the cost issue alone, not the moral or deterrence arguments for/against the death penalty.

I already admitted the system is flawed (probably will always be so).

Which would seem to indicate that the most likely way to save the money you wish to save would be to stop death penalty cases.

However I'd like to hear the logical justification for why we need to keep guilty and dangerous humans alive and cared for rather than dealing with them like we do with any other dangerous animal predator. One can easily point out a human predator is vastly more dangerous within society, and for that, they get creature comforts the rest of us have to work our asses off for.

I have already given you one reasons to do so, it is cheaper under the current system.

You said you wanted to save money and life imprisonment is the cheaper alternative.

Now if you want to take the argument beyond money and claim the death penalty is worth the cash for it's deterrent effects or that justice requires blood for blood etc, then that is fair enough but that doesn't change the fact that from a strictly narrow view of the economics involved it costs more to execute a person than to keep them locked away for life.

Note: I feel the need to point out I'm not against rehabilitation of criminals and reincorperating them into society as productive members if at all possible. I want to make it clear I'm talking about those people that are considered beyond that possibility.

We aren't discussing the death penalty in general, let alone the larger imprisonment system.
We are specifically discussing the cost factor.