Prison Messaging System JPay Withdraws Copyright Claims 141
Florida-based JPay has a specialized business model and an audience that is at least in part a (literally) captive one: the company specializes in logistics and communications services involving prisons and prisoners, ranging from payment services to logistics to electronic communications with prisoners. Now, via Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing comes a report from the EFF that the company has back-pedaled on a particularly strange aspect of the terms under which the company provided messaging services for prisoners: namely, JPay's terms of service made exhaustive copyright claims on messages sent by prisoners, claiming rights to "all content, whether it be text, images, or video" send via the service. That language has now been excised, but not in time to prevent at least one bad outcome; from the EFF's description:
[Valerie] Buford has been running a social media campaign to overturn her [brother, Leon Benson's] murder conviction. However, after Buford published a videogram that her brother recorded via JPay to Facebook, prison administrators cut off her access to the JPay system, sent Benson to solitary confinement, and stripped away some of his earned "good time." To justify the discipline, prison officials said they were enforcing JPay's intellectual property rights and terms of service.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Not all of them do. Get locked up in a Georgia state prison, and all you get is a "blue phone" through a nobody telco that charges you exorbitant fees to make 15-minute phone calls. You can't call a cell phone, and land lines have to be pre-approved before you can call them.
And people wonder why guards sell contraband cell phones in these prisons?
Re: Huh? (Score:1, Interesting)
Your prisons aren't prisons. They are money making slave holes. Yet another reason why your country simply stinks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Our prisons aren't prisons. They are money making slave holes. Yet another reason why our country simply stinks.
There. I'm FROM here and I said it.
YOU NEED TO REALLY THINK ABOUT THE WORDS AND NOT JUST REFLEXIVELY SNIPE AT THE POSTER.
THINK.
Re: Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I live right here, in the US. And, I agree with AC's post. There is no justifiable reason that the prison system should charge as much as $75 for a short conversation with a prisoner. None. That "service" only helps to justify the statement that the prison systems are run for profit.
The United States cannot justify it's huge prison population. The US cannot justify privatized prisons. The US cannot justify locking people away for decades for crimes in which no person was hurt. ESPECIALLY since murderers often walk free after 5 to 10 years.
Face it - our system is fucked. Money making slave holes sums it up nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
This is spot on, and we cannot and will not change it because, money.
Re: Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. Communications can be controlled, regardless of the pricing. The phone call can be totally free, and be monitored. Or, it can cost ten thousand dollars, and be monitored as well.
A dangerous person who is incarcerated should be strictly controlled. No access to telephones, or limited and closely monitored access is fine with me. Charging exorbitant prices is NOT alright. Someone is exploiting the prisoners and their families for profit, and THAT is exactly what I am talking about. The whole prison industry is exploiting the prisoners and their families.
Prisoners have less voice than any other group in America. No senator gives a damn about them, no congressman, no governor. Those prisoners with any voice at all are beholden to lawyers or to activists. They have few legal means of communication, and they are charged fees that are outrageous when they use them.
Your concerns about scams would be better addressed by getting control of all the cell phones smuggled into the prisons, oftentimes smuggled by the guards who are supposed to enforce the prison rules.
It would be virtually impossible for me to sneak a telephone into a prison, without being detected. But, I can offer a guard a hundred dollars to openly carry that telephone in to work with him, and he will readily give it to the individual I've specified. Some guards may hold out for more than a hundred dollars, some will simply refuse. Some few of them might go to the law, and report that I've attempted to bribe them. But, by and large, the guards are the major suppliers of cell phones within the prisons. And, THAT is where most of the scams come from.
In some cases, trustees may compromise the prison's own telephone system, but as nearly as I can tell, that is usually discovered in relatively short order, and corrected.
And, none of that justifies the flagrant exploitation of the people who are put in the care of the prison system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
However, after Buford published a videogram that her brother recorded via JPay to Facebook, prison administrators cut off her access to the JPay system, sent Benson to solitary confinement, and stripped away some of his earned "good time." To justify the discipline, prison officials said they were enforcing JPay's intellectual property rights and terms of service.
How does this make any sense?
Are we in third world country where the brother is punished for what his sister allegedly did?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. We are in a first world country where assholes in charge lie about what they are doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Most third world countries are developing, not declining. But otherwise yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to get off the grass, AC. There were no telephones in jails when I was young. The prisoner was searched before being led into a room, and sat down on one side of a table. His visitors were already seated on the other side of the table. No materials were to be handed across the table. Photos, letters, and court documents could be laid on the table, and viewed, but nothing could cross the line painted down the middle of the table. If it did, the guard at the end of the table would declare that
Um.. Why? (Score:1)
They are in there to be "reformed", why do you punish them even more, just because of some stupid ass App.
Re: (Score:1)
That's cute that you think prison is for "reform". Prison is for no such thing.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Only in 'murica would you think prisons are NOT for rehabilitation and reform.
In fact progressive countries who do not treat prisoners like inhuman scum (unlike the US) the rate of prisoners returning to jail is much lower.
Re:Um.. Why? (Score:5, Funny)
That's cute that you think prison is for "reform". Prison is for no such thing.
Ah, but the Department of Corrections sounds soooo much more civilised than "the Department of Brutal Vengeance".
Re: (Score:1)
I'm glad you chose to quote my previous AC comment. Having, shall we say first hand, experience of the American Penal System, being sent to prison isn't for "reform and rehabilitation", but as a means of "branding" you as an unacceptable member of society, a means of keeping one in "one's place, or station".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your post raises some interesting observations. I'm not quite sure how to address them in a singular comprehensive manner, so I shall do my best to address them individually.
I completely understand this, although thankfully not from first-hand experience. It is a tragedy that so many parts of our society see vindictive punishment as a valid goal, rather than attempting to reform offenders.
There are indeed many members of American society who feel that "justice" should consist of swift and harsh punishments, that some sort of violent retribution should be induced. I find this to be a rather sad irony: these members of society who are so willing to inflict state supported violence(and state supported murder(and let's face
Re: (Score:3)
You obviously didn't address me, but I'd like to answer your questions.
First - I believe that punishment for certain crimes should be swift and harsh. Truly heinous crimes should be met with harsh punishment, up to and including capital punishment. I'm talking about murder, kidnapping, brutal rape, maiming and disfigurement, slavery, sex traffiking minors - truly heinous crimes.
We should NOT be punishing people for petty bullshit. Caught smoking a joint, you go to jail for a year, or maybe even prison fo
Re: Um.. Why? (Score:1)
Actually he would have been a good person if he'd used the free and generous food stamp program to buy food. Since that wasn't an option he must be a bad person who spent them elsewhere.
Re:Um.. Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
What you cannot see, is that prisoners are bad because they murder/brutalize innocent people,
You have erroneously conflated "prisoners" with "violent offenders". The vast majority of people convicted to custodial sentences are convicted of non-violent crimes, such as possession of illicit substances or petty theft. Even car-jacking is usually carried out in the absence of the owner and with no threat of physical harm.
It is not only the violent criminals that are alienated and disenfranchised by the "ex-con" label, but anyone serving a custodial sentence.
And even violent offenders may be victims of circumstance. Drug addiction doesn't come without the addict choosing to take drugs, but the consequences of drug addiction can include violent tendencies that are cured if the addict cleans up. But what's the point coming off your escape from reality when reality is that no-one will give you a second chance?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
By murdering someone through state-supported action, does it bring back the dead said person murdered? Does it satiate your lust for blood? Not in the least. It only serves to feed the hunger you have for more violence and murder. Violence only begets more violence. Don't you think there should be a point where it should stop? Don't you think there should be a point where we should treat the underlying causes instead of treating the symptoms?
Re: (Score:1)
That's cute that you think prison is for "reform". Prison is for no such thing.
Ah, but the Department of Corrections sounds soooo much more civilised than "the Department of Brutal Vengeance".
Prisons -should- have 3 main purposes (with all of them equally important):
Many problems are created when only some (instead of all) of the above are served.
Re: (Score:2)
Vengeance to the criminal from society on behalf of the victim or his family so he/they not revenge him, as it's their right but may do it excessively.
Vengeance is no-one's "right".
"Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19.
Re: (Score:2)
Vengeance to the criminal from society on behalf of the victim or his family so he/they not revenge him, as it's their right but may do it excessively.
Vengeance is no-one's "right".
"Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19.
I agree - you are right. But when i wrote that it's their right i meant it's their "civil right" and must provided to anyone choosing to exercise it (now it is done from society on behalf of the victim - more civilized i think) - someone may choose not to exercise his civil right to vengeance (and he will receive the blessings promised). Society collectively is far away from the Lord's path (yet), so it takes vengeance to the criminal - each person on it's own can choose the right path you just presented to
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere in our legal system is there a civil right for "vengeance".
I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe you've dug up something from England in 1200 or something. If so, I assure that precedent is no longer applicable.
Re: (Score:1)
Nowhere in our legal system is there a civil right for "vengeance".
I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe you've dug up something from England in 1200 or something. If so, I assure that precedent is no longer applicable.
Of cource your (and ours, Greek) legal system provides the civil right for "vengeance" - but as i wrote, now society exercise it on behalf of the victim (or victim's family), as a more civilized way.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not correct. Crimes are considered injuries to the state, not to the individual victim (if any) of the crime. Victims can sometimes sue the offender to recover damages, but that's not criminal law.
The state isn't acting on behalf of the victim, either. Crimes can be prosecuted even if the victim doesn't want them to be prosecuted, and, if a prosecutor decides not to go after a particular suspected offender, the victim has no recourse.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Our justice system is historically based on the theory of retributive justice. Retributive justice is not the same as vengeance. Retributive justice theory says that the punishment must "fit" the crime, based on its severity. This theory says it's also impersonal; society is not supposed to get pleasure from the act of delivering this type of justice.
Of course, this makes no sense. How does inflicting more harm do anything to "solve" the fact that harm has already been inflicted? This is the logic o
Re: (Score:1)
Our justice system is historically based on the theory of retributive justice. Retributive justice is not the same as vengeance. Retributive justice theory says that the punishment must "fit" the crime, based on its severity. This theory says it's also impersonal; society is not supposed to get pleasure from the act of delivering this type of justice.
We may have a terminology mis-undertanding (most probably my fault - see my sig!), since Vengeance=Revenge, and "revenge" in Greek has an extra meaning inside the compound word "ek-diki-si", of trial-justice, so it is not so negative as it may be in English. Also, as i wrote, one reason that it is only the society (i.e., not the victim itself) that can exercises the victim's right for revenge, is for t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
""Society collectively is far away from the Lord's path (yet), so it takes vengeance to the criminal -"
" the further its away from the Lords path, the more civilised society will become. The lords path is to stone people to death, initiate genocide, perform child abuse etc
The Lord's path is written as a good summary in the New Testament as "love each other" - do not accuse the Lord for what the people do, and don't accuse those on the Lord's path for what those not on His path do.
Re: (Score:2)
thats the usual, when its good, praise the lord and when its bad blame the people. Try reading the Old Testament as well which was never renounced by the new testament bods or current religious supporters
Re: (Score:1)
"The Lord's path is written as a good summary in the New Testament as "love each other" - do not accuse the Lord for what the people do, and don't accuse those on the Lord's path for what those not on His path do." thats the usual, when its good, praise the lord and when its bad blame the people. Try reading the Old Testament as well which was never renounced by the new testament bods or current religious supporters
The New Testament (writen in Koine -i.e., "common"- Greek, called "Kaine" meaning New AND Upgraded) is what the vast majority of Christians (e.g., Orthodox like me, Catholics, most Protestants) think as their Book - the Old Testament (i.e., the Jew's Book, in Jewish - with the "Greek" as the most common ORIGINAL translation used in the world) is a Book of great wisdom (i read it), very misunderstood (e.g., the bad human nature stories are mistakenly considered by many as God's acts), that the vast majority
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. I am a practicing Jew, and I have never heard of a book that promoted all of those things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "Lord" didn't say such a thing. Some human wrote it after a delirious dream.
All deed must earn their reward, and short of a "Lord", society is the next best guess that could mete out this reward.
Re: (Score:2)
What, you object to a Buddhist who can quote the Christian scriptures? When in Rome... ;)
Re: (Score:1)
I disagree:
The stage is not there for a tit for tat, eye for an eye entity. The criminal justice "system" is there for crime -prevention- first and foremost.
From Criminal Justice 101: There are three purposes for prisons:
Rehabilitation.
Protection from society.
Punishment.
You toss a shoplifter or drunk driver in the can for a few days, and usually they don't like being locked up, so tend to not come back. This is the punishment aspect... being sent to jail/prison -as- punishment, not -for- punishment.
A rap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think an AI would have to rule us, just change little things like that.
If every message containing the words "department of corrections" was man in the middle attacked to say "the Department of Brutal Vengeance" the problem would get solved much more quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, punishment is part of it too.
Prison can do more than one thing. Or at least it's supposed to
Re: (Score:2)
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=4... [lawcomic.net]
This explains it all, with pictures. Rehabilitation is a thing, but it is mostly a TV thing.
Re:Um.. Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
More concerning is why the US Prison system is worried about a private corporation's intellectual rights and safeguarding them? Prisons are supposed to listen only to the courts. Did JPay have a judge-signed court order to send this person to solitary?
You Americans should be very disturbed.
Re: (Score:2)
I am very disturbed. There's a lot of corruption, and sheer stupidity. I really think we need to spell out, in writing, a whole bunch of things that the powerful aren't allowed to do. No EULAs, copyrights, or other claims of legal rights that aren't actually true. For instance, the National Football League claims ownership of everything about every broadcast of every football game, including things that are clearly not theirs to claim. They assert so at the end of the game.
I have an anecdote to share
Re: (Score:2)
More concerning is why the US Prison system is worried about a private corporation's intellectual rights and safeguarding them?
Yeah, that's what blows my mind too... :)
Did JPay have a judge-signed court order to send this person to solitary?
Also isn't copyright violations normally a civil matter, and resolved through damages, as in money. So effectively this is solitary confinement as a form of debtors' prison... :)
Wow, that's a lot of disturbing things..
Bummer! (Score:2)
So the Godfather Tony in Prison doesn't have the copyright on the kill orders he sends from prison?
Re: (Score:2)
And does Godfather Tony relinquish liability for those orders as well? If Eddie the Weasel end up dead, can Tony just say, "Hey, don't talk to me. JPay owns the copyrights on those orders."
Ryan Shapiro (Score:1)
What's the J in JPay stand for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.glassdoor.com/Revie... [glassdoor.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Judge Jury and Executioner. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, JPay owns all your posts, what does not follow is the Original Poster being liable for any and all copyright violations of the content they created.
Hmm... Maybej JPay wants to argue that the original poster was not authorized to send the video to his sister because it was copyrighted :)
Lol, I hope the summary is inaccurate, because there is so many disturbing elements (like criminally corrupt violations of human rights) to that summary...
Chris Rock put prisons on my radar. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Free Employees (Score:3)
To justify the discipline, prison officials said they were enforcing JPay's intellectual property rights and terms of service.
If you told someone that 20 years ago, they'd have called you a crazed conspiracy theorist and asked where your tinfold hat was. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. Let's make our life's goal the enforcing of "intellectual property" rights and TOS.
Uh oh (Score:2)
If J-Pay is for sending money to prisoners, then what is J-Date?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:overturn murder conviction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh but what if he is innocent ?
The GP asked you to look at the cost of death row prisoners. I think what he means is paying compensation to relatives for a false conviction is cheaper than keeping them alive until the appeals process is finished, and that he personally feels that this line of logic is acceptible. Personally, I consider this attitude murderous in and of itself. Perhaps the GP will voluntarily submit to the death penalty...?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh but what if he is innocent ?
The GP asked you to look at the cost of death row prisoners. I think what he means is paying compensation to relatives for a false conviction is cheaper than keeping them alive until the appeals process is finished, and that he personally feels that this line of logic is acceptible. Personally, I consider this attitude murderous in and of itself. Perhaps the GP will voluntarily submit to the death penalty...?
With capitol offence level stupidity, the voluntary part shouldn't be necessary.
And I'm sure the OP would be okay with it, since it fits within their world view so well.
Nah, they probably whine up a shit storm over getting a minor traffic ticket.
Re: (Score:1)
You might want to look into how much it costs to execute inmates.
Furthermore, what if they ARE innocent and exonerated later based on new evidence? There've been quite a few cases where someone has spent literally decades in prison only to be proved innocent by a variety of means.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/03/us/alabama-death-row-inmate/
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/prosecutors-dismiss-1975-murder-charges-against-3
Would it have been fair or just for these men to have, instead, died?
Re: (Score:3)
Then you punish whoever fucked up the case.
Heck, in California if you commit perjury and get someone executed on bullshit testimony, YOU get the chair next.
Re: (Score:3)
People can spend a long time on death row. Punishing those that are guilty of framing an innocent man who faced the death penalty for years might not even possible.
And let's be pretty clear here, most incidents of wrongful imprisonment involve police investigators and prosecutors, both of which are heavily protected against any charges of wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and the like.
So once again, what happens if an innocent man is executed?
Re:overturn murder conviction? (Score:5, Insightful)
most incidents of wrongful imprisonment involve police investigators and prosecutors, both of which are heavily protected against any charges of wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and the like.
Maybe that's the part that needs to change. Take away some of those protections and then maybe you'll have prosecutors who will place the truth over their own careers.
In America (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm well aware that "the establishment" is practically immune.
That's why I was suggesting a *change*.
You know, something OTHER than the status quo?
Re: (Score:2)
While it's entirely possible that those men are innocent, having the original conviction thrown out and the state declining to prosecute them again after so many years doesn't prove they are innocent.
While it does happen, it's pretty rare for someone to get a Declaration of Actual Innocence - in fact the entire appeals process revolves around procedural and legal errors, not factual ones. Just getting a new trial for someone convicted before DNA testing was available, but who can now prove that their blood or semen doesn't match the evidence, is an uphill battle.
So what would you accept as good enough evidence? The Innocence Project claims to have found 140 actual perpetrators of the crimes that their
Re: (Score:2)
Are you late for church?
Re: overturn murder conviction? (Score:2)
Re:overturn murder conviction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that make sure they stay a criminal? There are menial unskilled jobs they can do upon release.
That being said, education in prison is likely a good thing to lower the risks of recidivism. The only problem I have with it is the ability to study in careers that they cannot legally or as a matter of practicality, participate in. Certain professional licenses bar felony applicants and industries like banking is not likely to hire a convicted thief. So tailor the opportunities to practical career paths
Re: (Score:1)
So if you were running Operation Paperclip after WWII, and you got ahold of Werner Von Braun who had recently (within the last 5 years) worked a bunch of concentration camp "inmates" to exhaustion/death building V2 rockets which were used to kill British civilians and destroy British property, you would lock him up with no amenities whatsoever and train him for a manual labor job after release?
Or no, let's fast-forward to the modern era: if you had a child prodigy genius working for NASA who got locked up f
Re: (Score:2)
That's a false equivalent. First, a Nazi war criminal did not violate domestic law. Why would you compare them to domestic criminals. Next, there will be outliers in everything. Surely you don't think every slave driver who ends up killing someone deserves to escape charges and end up with a government job for the rest of their life.
Finally, if there is an overriding government need for some talent the convicted possess, are you fine with giving them a free ride and where does it end. I mean is the sex s
Re: (Score:2)
Kids, can you say, "False dichotomy"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the time it will allow them to finally grow up. A lot of prison terms are for crimes that essentially are decisions people would never make later in life.
Re: (Score:2)
Some prisoners get sex-offender treatment, and were subject to much more restrictions. They're not likely to even get unskilled jobs, because "children congregate bearby".
City ordinances sometimes are the cause of this, and they'are also known to create sex offender colonies [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Some people are innocent. Others may have killed in self defense and were convicted by corrupt prosecutors twisting the facts to the jury because they were more interested in advancing their careers than justice. It could happen to you. These days, it can happen to any of us.
Only when there is absolutely no doubt, the crime is clearly on video, the motive is clearly not self defense, only then should execution be allowed, and I do agree it should be swiftly applied.
And why are you still using my handle?
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't actually answer the question as to what happens if an innocent man is executed.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't actually answer the question as to what happens if an innocent man is executed.
I think some people view this in a similar way to the military and 'acceptable losses' or 'collateral damage'. They think that since, in military operations, a certain level of combat casualties, innocent civilian casualties or friendly fire incidents are unavoidable and an acceptable 'cost of doing business'.
They fail to recognise the difference between the civil legal system and warfare. And remember, the USA has been at war for most of its existence, its become a way of life and just background noise in
Re:overturn murder conviction? (Score:4, Insightful)
Overturn murder conviction? :)
Murderers belong to a electric chair. Keeping those morons around is total waste of taxpayers money.
Before you start your hippy bull shit about "what if he is innocent..." find out, how much it cost to keep one of those scumbags in prison for a year.
I bet most of you wish you could spend that much on yourself for the rest of your life
Gas/chair/needle all the violent repeat criminals and be done with those morons.
Hmm let's see... assuming the Seattle Times is not just pushing this because they or the report authors are anti-death penalty...
Seeking death penalty adds $1M to prosecution cost, study says
http://www.seattletimes.com/se... [seattletimes.com]
Or according to the Nevada Legislature, "The Legislative Auditor estimated the cost of a murder trial in which the death penalty was sought cost $1.03 to $1.3 million, whereas cases without the death penalty cost $775,000."
(All the study links I can find for that one are either pdf or paywalled)
Kansas: "Defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not sought, according to a new study by the Kansas Judicial Council. Examining 34 potential death-penalty cases from 2004-2011, the study found that defense costs for death penalty trials averaged $395,762 per case, compared to $98,963 per case when the death penalty was not sought. "
Idaho: "A new, but limited, study of the costs of the death penalty in Idaho found that capital cases are more costly and take much more time to resolve than non-capital cases. One measure of death-penalty costs was reflected in the time spent by attorneys handling appeals. The State Appellate Public Defenders office spent about 44 times more time on a typical death penalty appeal than on a life sentence appeal (almost 8,000 hours per capital defendant compared to about 180 hours per non-death penalty defendant). Capital cases with trials took 20.5 months to reach a conclusion while non-capital cases with trials took 13.5 months."
California: Assessment of Costs by Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell (2011, updated 2012)
"The authors concluded that the cost of the death penalty in California has totaled over $4 billion since 1978:
$1.94 billion--Pre-Trial and Trial Costs
$925 million--Automatic Appeals and State Habeas Corpus Petitions
$775 million--Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals
$1 billion--Costs of Incarceration
The authors calculated that, if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years."
Texas: "Each death penalty case in Texas costs taxpayers about $2.3 million. That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. ("Executions Cost Texas Millions," Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)." Granted, the Texas study is probably too old for immediate relevance. ...and so on...
Going purely from memory for this next little item, so I cannot provide any citation for it, I seem to recall that the cost of keeping a prisoner on Death Row is about $90,000 to $100,000 higher than keeping a prisoner in the general population.
Sounds to me like the Death Penalty is a ridiculously expensive option, considering that it is primarily there as a deterrent. Given the crime rates in the US, I would have to question whether the deterrent is working. So if it is not working, and it costs a butt-ton of money, why bother with it?
Re: (Score:2)
Given the crime rates in the US, I would have to question whether the deterrent is working.
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of convictions in the US wouldn't be eligible for capital punishment in any jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:1)
Murderers belong to a electric chair. Keeping those morons around is total waste of taxpayers money.
Before you start your hippy bull shit about "what if he is innocent..." find out, how much it cost to keep one of those scumbags in prison for a year.
It costs us more to reply to your comments than you're worth. Please report to the nearest suicide booth for recycling.
Re: (Score:2)
If you still think all people on death row are ALL guilty, you need to get yourself educated on miscarriages of justice.
http://w [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
yeah.. the prison administrator should be sent for some solitary time because he thinks he is a judge. enforcing copyrights of the prison vendor via punishing measures? is the dude getting money from the jpay to be a jpay thug?(sure does. he should be doing time for that though).