从另一个角度看死刑问题 - 珍珠湾ART

死刑的存废一直有争议。大家各执一词。但是当涉及到具体实施的时候，就不得不考虑维死刑的花费问题了。

中国的情况不好说，因为资料一般没有公开。或者公开了，我查不到，但是在美国，对死刑犯与终生监禁罪犯处理的花费纳税人钱财有很大的不同，也许出乎一些人的意料，死刑犯的开销要远远超过终生监禁。

下面是一些数据，供参考：

• The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life.
Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state’s executions.

• In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of incarceration.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

注：根据网上一些资料，在美国政府对囚犯花费纳税人 2~3万美元/年

到底用在哪些items上, 要是有个breakdown的清单看看就好.

回复：回复：嗨, 你一语中的. 这就对了:

上贴时间: 2011-7-11 3:21:2 (北京时间: 2011-7-11 15:21:2)
文章来源: husonghu® （给该用户: 发私人信件赠送礼物）
用户信息: 积分: 4176 现金: 212元（更多个人信息）

[ 脑筋一动首页 ] [ 回复此贴 ] [ 引用回复 ]

[ 加入博客 ] [ 编辑修改 ] [ 删除此贴 ]

你提到的, 正是我感到很费解的一些问题:

1. 这么说来, 避免错判错杀真的是提倡废除死刑的头等重要的理由吗? 为什么不能靠其它许许多多可以做的途径来避免错判错杀, 而一定要靠放弃唯一能够维持有最大限度震慑力的死刑来达到呢? 到底有谁能够向民众证明这是"福"大于"祸"的事呢? 如果不能, 那我认为这也是应该让整个社会民意来选择的事.

2. 显著的社会效益? 那么废除死刑的显著的社会效益是什么呢? 如果你说有可能避免一两个错杀就是废除死刑的显著的社会效益的话, 那为什么就不能说有可能少出几个凶杀案的受害人就是维持死刑的显著的社会效益呢? 特别使我想不通的(我想也是使大众最难接受的)是: "废除死刑"是比"不首先使用核武器"还要彻底的放弃武力的宣告 ---- "不首先使用核武器"还保留了后继使用的权力, 而"废除死刑"则是对任何凶残的杀人犯都保障他不死的"免死金牌"呀!

3. 在所有的废除死刑倡导中, 我一直想看到他们描述的好处和最大好处是什么(除了避免错判错杀之外), 但看到的只是空洞的或似是而非的. 比如"社会更文明更和谐", 我觉得离开社会经济政治现实谈这些完全是空谈: 如果对恶性杀人案不能判死刑, 人们会怨声载道, 哪来和谐可言? 就象贪官盛行, 哪来和谐一样. 还有更离谱的说法是: 国家用死刑是对百姓用杀人来解决问题的一种示范和激励, 而废除死刑才表明国家反对杀人. 真真滑稽. 骗没头脑的人啊! 我想只有两种人会赞同说国家用死刑是对百姓用杀人来解决问题的激励: 一是傻瓜, 二是无赖. 正常的人, 只会知道死刑越残酷,越表明国家压制杀人犯. (有哪个正常的人会说对杀人犯处以凌迟是鼓励百姓杀人?). 而废除死刑后, 老百姓肯定会这么说: "这年头, 杀人是越来越轻松了, 都不用偿命了". 我觉得废除死刑倡导者还是少来点这种自欺欺人的说辞比较好.

4. 讨论中, 新新和大清都提到了"公平". 首先, 当然是要尽量公平. 其次,怎样才算"公平"? 古代刑法, 明显是"罚大于罪", 按朴素的传统观念, 很有道理, 因为, "谁叫你做不该做的事"? 现代刑法, 已经是越来越"罚不及罪"了: 不管多凶残的杀人犯, 无非注射死而已. 废除死刑显然更是"罚不及罪", 为什么要这样? 为什么就不能尽量公平一点呢? 这到底是社会的进步还是退步? 谁能说说其中的道理?

5. 用最文气的描述, 我觉得废除死刑提倡者是有点脱离社会现实的理想主义者. 用不客气的语言说, 我觉得他们是糊涂.

原贴：

文章来源: HF:® 于 2011-7-10 22:33:33 (北京时间: 2011-7-11 10:33:33)
标题：回复：嗨, 你一语中的. 这就对了:

如果没显著的社会效益，“震慑力”就不是保留死刑的理由，到底错判错杀的可能也是有的。

原贴：

文章来源: husonghu® 于 2011-7-10 15:15:36 (北京时间: 2011-7-11 3:15:36)
标题：嗨, 你一语中的. 这就对了:

------ "总有那么几个坏蛋因害怕死刑而没杀人"。

我要求不高, 少那么几个坏蛋因害怕死刑而没杀人, 就少死了这么几个无辜的人. (这几个人在你的犯罪率里看不出来).

------ "震慑力到底有没有作用?"

其实, 我说的震慑力就是指"少那么几个坏蛋因害怕死刑而没杀人, 就少死了这么几个无辜的人".

我开始也很纳闷，觉得不可思议，但是在仔细想想，觉得还是可能的。在美国，一般处决一个死刑犯需要好几年时间，甚至十几年时间。一切的法律手续，设施的使用，相关工作人员的charge等等加起来，我认为还是可能的。我想，其中开销最大的应该是“it costs hundreds of millions to avoid executing one innocent person.”

具体的清单我无从得知，不过如果你从网上查找，一般得到的信息就是告诉你主要是一些与legal process的相关费用。下面的几个回答比较好，转贴过来。

Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. Most people don't realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more than keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life. How can this be? It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out. It's not unusual for a prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years. Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks, and court facilities all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers.

Capital cases cost more from the start because case law mandates that a defendant facing a possible death sentence is entitled to two attorneys rather than just one. Most capital defendants are indigent which means this cost is absorbed by the state. Capital defendants are entitled also to representation by relevant experts in their cases (investigators, mitigation specialists, psychologists, etc.) all paid for at state expense. Capital trials usually last longer than non capital trials. Additionally, and probably more important with respect to driving costs up, there is the appeals process. This is put into place to try to avoid executing an innocent person, but appellate attorneys cost even more than trial attorneys because of their specific expertise. Finally, the costs of supervision on high security death row while appeals proceed outweighs the costs of supervision in general population.

The process is intended to minimize the chances of innocent persons being executed. Thus, many apeals are allowed and it drags on for years. 'Death row' also requires more security, since the inmates are often very unpopular with the general population and/or are suicide risks and/or have nothing much to lose if they feel thier apeals aren't going to work. So keeping them imprisoned until thier executed is very expensive. Court isn't cheap, either, so the long series of apeals is very costly.

It's not really that it costs millions to execute one inmate - it's that it costs hundreds of millions to avoid executing one innocent person.