Friday, April 14, 2006
The Cost of Death
Does it really cost more for our government to sentence someone to death than life in prison? Frank Lloyd Wright once said, “The truth is more important than the facts.” His words display the importance of looking past the facts, which are easily skewed. For example, the average price for a death penalty trial ranges from 48 to 3,000% more than the average trial, but with the number of death penalty trials around three thousand per year one big trial, such as the Laci Peterson trial, can throw of the average cost by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also, the cost of trials in which prosecutors sought the death penalty and lost might be factored in the death penalty average. It would be more accurate and true to the real data if the Department of Justice’s statisticians used a median value with this data. Whether or not the DOJ statisticians include death penalty trials in the average trial costs is yet another thing to consider.
It costs $57,000 per year to house a convict in a maximum security prison in
Say a twenty-one year old man committed a murder and was witnessed by three people. If his trial cost 1 million dollars, about 50% more than the average life-in-prison trial, sat in prison for 20 years, then was put to death by a one thousand dollar shot of Pancuronium bromide the total process would cost a staggering 2.14 million dollars. However, assuming he was convicted, sentenced to life in a maximum security prison, and lives to the current life expectancy of 72 years of age, the process of justice would cost an even more staggering 3.4 million dollars. This demonstration illustrates how some people are wrong when they say that the death sentence is always more expensive than a life-in-prison.
Numbers aren’t everything. The most important thing to remember is that justice is priceless. The death penalty was created with the intent that it would deter criminals from committing heinous crimes, but this idea is both false and poorly founded because the criminals that commit crimes worthy of a death sentence are so physiologically complex already that the consequences mean nothing to them. If these death sentenced people were rational, logical people, who loved life, then we could safely assume that the death penalty would decrease violent and heinous crimes. Where there is a will, there is a way, which is why hard labor or solitary confinement may not work either. It all comes down to what one calls justice, as well as, how much they believe in justice.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Mr. Moore Part I
Like most other Americans, Moore defends free press, a right he milks day and night, however he criticizes a government no better than himself. The first of numerous writings on Mr. Michael Moore’s outrageous presentations of absurdity is what follows:
In just fifteen minutes of Michael Moore’s propaganda film, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Mr. Moore makes it quite evident that he possesses the contacts it takes to illegally hold confidential documents, as well as do nothing to prevent the tragedy of 9/11. Beyond poor journalism, if that is even what you would call Mr. Moore’s masterpiece, or poor interviewing, Mr. Moore’s contradictions are the largest and most clear parts of his sick presentation. Mr. Moore says many times in the film that he had, in his possession, classified documents, for example the FBI brief which detailed the threat from Saudi terrorist Osama Bin Laden. That brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” doesn’t mention an attack in which airplanes flown into buildings, or even an attack by air, not the blatant spelling out of the 9/11 attacks Moore lets his audience infer. The now declassified document says, “The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations.” Bush didn’t flat out ignore the brief; he put it in the hands of a trusted agency. While Moore is bragging about his ability to thread the necessary loopholes in our bureaucracy in “Fahrenheit 9/11,” he neglects to mention that he didn’t reveal the terrorist plot, which is exactly what he was, and is, condemning Mr. George W. Bush for. Mr. Moore supposedly had the information that 9/11 was going to happen before it did, so he is either a liar on a massive scale, which he already is, or is he the same thing as the government that he criticizes more than anything else?
If one of Mr. Moore’s ancestors murdered a man, does that make Mr. Moore guilty of murder? Absolutely not, although Mr. Moore murders ideals it is fairly safe to say he has never killed a human being. The same can be said about the Bin Laden family. Even though Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, the rest of his family are not terrorists. The Bin Laden family actually publicly disowned Osama in 1994. Also Osama is one of fifty to fifty-five siblings. If you don’t know the exact number that is your first clue that the family is quite spread out. The bottom line is Bush never met with Osama Bin Laden, he may have met with Osama’s distant brother, but that person is not Osama.
Since Mr. Moore always feels his opinion is the only correct opinion, like some people on the right, why doesn’t he run for president? If nothing else he could get into the Communist nominee, or could he? The problem he would run into is simple and well know, the culture changes. This means his populist opinion will have to change to keep up with the changes that our culture makes. Don’t be an ignorant American idiot and take what this man, Michael Moore, says as a fact, but first think what he says through, examine the facts, then make your decision. However, keep in mind that you might be the topic of an article soon.
