Quandry on Death Penalty

Recently in my home state (NE) the Death Penalty has come under fire. The newly appointed governor Pete Ricketts, son of Joe Ricketts (founder of TD Ameritrade), betwen both have donated over $200,000 amongst their own financial monies in order to allow for the death penalty to be allowed in the state of Nebraska. Thus, Pete who is Governor has donated at least $100,000 while governor in order to "preach" and fund his stance that the death penalty should be upheld in the State. I would like to add here that the only other donations given to this cause were from one business man (Mike Cassling) for $25,000 who is a CEO business man and (so called) philanthropist that made his weath by selling hospital equipment (e.g. MRI equipment, CT scan, Mammography, MRI, etc. through the Siemens corporation), as well as a $10,000 donation from the Omaha Police Union. These 3 contributors ake up for over 99% of the overall sum of money for the cause to keep the death penalty legalized in Nebraska, which has recently been outlawed until furthier notice.

If you read the below link you can read the Newspaper article for yourself, I am not going to link every instance it has appeared in the paper but this one will give you the gist.

Nebraska Governor Pays For Death Penalty

The question I want to ask of ATS is what is there to gain by investing so much money in the cause? Who would rightfully invest $200,000 into a cause as such as having the death penalty upheld unless they knew they were going to make something off of that contribution? Why would a Governor be doing something such as this and doesn't it seem suspicious by the people also investing for the death penalty to be upheld?

On the anti-death penalty side you will notice the name of George Soros, the billionaire, who has contuibuted to the anti-death penalty charitable act , if you want to call it that in su of around $400,000. So this is where I get confused with these people. What do they want and who is on the side for what gains?

I have many more questions I could ask and many of my own opinions and speculations but I would like to hear an outside voice to this in order to garner more public opinion.

a reply to: iDope Drug companies may make money off of it. A particular drug used for it was either outlawed in some states or scarce.

The death penalty is at least not financially sound. The appeals process leading to an actual death costs about 10x more than feeding and housing that person for life.

The death penalty is, in my opinion, not something that should exist in a modern society. The penalty of incarceration without possibility of parole for life is enough and probably worse than death.

Many will say something along the lines of "What if it was your child they killed?" Well, Of course I would want to kill them myself and painfully and slowly in ways that would shock the most unshockable. But I am not the government.
Too many innocent people have been sentenced to death, costing millions upon millions in appeals.

As for those throwing money at it, it is probably for death by injection and the age old 'pandering for votes'.

a reply to: iDope

[...] both have donated over $200,000 amongst their own financial monies in order to allow for the death penalty to be allowed in the state of Nebraska.

Good call!

Neither of them are paying such good money to have people executed. That amount of money is buttons to people like this and yet they'll get it all back in salaries and perks of the job. Spending a few thousands to support the death penalty will get the continued support of the people. They get to stay in their jobs and earn appearance dollars at events etc.

If that's even halfway accurate, they are exploiting the death penalty criminals to squeeze a good lifestyle and $$$ from the people.

I know everyone here thinks I am a conservative, but one of my many liberal stances is that I oppose the death penalty. While I see several reasons to be pro-death penalty, I can never get past the fact that it seems barbaric for a civilized society to be involved in the execution of its citizens.

a reply to: iDope

I'd never have considered that people might pay to ensure the existence of laws from which they could not personally profit.

Well, I suppose it is a capital offense.

a reply to: Metallicus

Plus how can you really trust the system to get it right every time..look at what one of the 3 letter agencies did for decades with hair folical evidence. I wonder how many were put to death in that time with that tainted evidence as part of the case.

a reply to: reldra

From what I remember reading in the paper, there was one drug out of the three necessary for lethal injection (from India) that was on backorder or not available. i specifically remember that the State tried to purchase Sodium Tryiphthanol, or whatever it is called (but I know that Sodium Tri...nol is accurate by memory), and the order was not put through or was not available at the time, so the order was on hold. And now this mess is progessing in the State. There is 8-10 people on Death Row at the moment between 1980's and today and are waiting execution, but why would the Governor be expending his own "pocket cash" to have these people murdered, or future people murdered?

a reply to: Metallicus

Hiya Metallicus, is there a difference in stances in the US? I'm just wondering if Dem governors are as pro-death penalty as GOP governors? Or are both sides a mixture of pro and against?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: iDope

I'd never have considered that people might pay to ensure the existence of laws from which they could not personally profit.

Well, I suppose it is a capital offense.

I am just trying to figure out how an inoffice Governor would profit from having the Death Penalty, in order to make back at least $200,000 invested, which isn't that much considered he is basically the owener of TD Ameritrade, and the owner of the paper that this was published is Berkshire (Warren Buffet) who resides in Omaha.

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: reldra
why would the Governor be expending his own "pocket cash" to have these people murdered, or future people murdered?

He is pandering to the tough on crime voters..probably older folk who are more inclined to actually vote.

a reply to: reldra

As for those throwing money at it, it is probably for death by injection and the age old 'pandering for votes'.

The thing is, Pete Ricketts just got into office this last year, and George Soros is his opposistion on this. Ricketts's family alone accounts for over 90% of the money divulged into this aspect, where no average Nebraskan is donating their time nor money into this. It seems like There is a feud going on among the rich to determine what is right. 2 very rich people going at it to buy votes on what has been vetoed.

BTW, the Ernie Chambers mentioned in this article speaking out on Rickett's is very interesting, he's is the African American that has been in politics for over 30 years and wears a white T-shirt and blue jeans everywhere. He has made a lot of reformative changes in a highly Republican State over the years. I met him In Lincoln while in school and I couldn't get past his generosity and his grey streaked afro. Not a sight you'd imagine in Nebraska, but he has his good points and racially divisive.

a reply to: iDope

I don't agree that the death penalty is any kind of deterrent to criminals. And we shouldn't pay for their prison food and board for their lifetimes either.

No easy answers here

A reply to: mysteriousstranger

I don't agree with the death penalty, that is sound, but why do you not want the people in prison to be supported? Prison isn't perfect but the reason we imprison dangerous people is to rehabilitate them. They need to be taught how to get a job and how to apply skills, you don't even want them to have food? Now before you say "I said we shouldn't pay for their food", who will if not you? The government gets money from you via tax's, the tax's go to a plethora of things. One of which being Prison. We can't just stop supporting Prisons, it doesn't make sense. If we did then they wouldn't have food, they would starve to death or riot and get out, neither of which are good results. If you say starving them out is a good decision, I am not sure you are worth talking to. I don't mean to be rude to you, I just don't see your logic. Why do you believe what you believe?

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: iDope Drug companies may make money off of it. A particular drug used for it was either outlawed in some states or scarce.

The death penalty is at least not financially sound. The appeals process leading to an actual death costs about 10x more than feeding and housing that person for life.

The death penalty is, in my opinion, not something that should exist in a modern society. The penalty of incarceration without possibility of parole for life is enough and probably worse than death.

Many will say something along the lines of "What if it was your child they killed?" Well, Of course I would want to kill them myself and painfully and slowly in ways that would shock the most unshockable. But I am not the government.
Too many innocent people have been sentenced to death, costing millions upon millions in appeals.

As for those throwing money at it, it is probably for death by injection and the age old 'pandering for votes'.

I don't get it, what part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't they understand? If America didn't profess to being a Christian property owning democracy, I guess it would be reasonable. But how can you have Bible thumpers, doing things in the name of Jesus, and then calling for a death penalty, the hypocrisy is obvious, and exposes them to votes of no confidence.

a reply to: TheNobleCasserole

Simple. You cant rehab a person serving life in prison...because they are never getting out to show it. We will just keep housing, clothing and feeding them the rest of their lives until they die in prison.

The death penalty (which I do agree with) also teaches them nothing...as the number of lifers and death row inmates continue to grow unabated even when they know there is a death penalty.

So life...and the death penalty...are both no deterrent's to the criminals becoming criminals.. Prisons and jails worldwide are jammed to the brim...and more coming in every day

Thanks MS

a reply to: mysterioustranger

I can't agree with the death penalty for a variety of reasons, one being the execution of innocent people(In the US 1 in 25 people executed are innocent) and two it is a lot less expensive just to keep them in jail for life. While you are correct about people sentenced to life not being rehabilitated, the whole prison population is not sentenced for life. Perhaps no one sentenced to life would get rehab programs, hell make two different facilities so rehabilitated people are with rehabilitated people. A good way of lowering prison population is giving inmates education of the world, one of the reasons the prison population is so large is because of a vicious cycle. Person is imprisoned - ten years later he is released - he has no credentials, a prison record and no knowledge of current events - he cannot get a job - he does something illegal to make money - if he gets caught he goes back to prison, rinse and repeat.

Prison should primarily be a program that educates and helps these people, without helping them they will repeat what they've done before.

a reply to: TheNobleCasserole

You reaffirmed my point. Prison generally only for a small %...rehabilitates, and a majority repeats, and killing them solves nothing either to new potential "criminals".

They understand the death penalty...but it does stop them for committing crimes.

to me, once i read this:

www.newyorker.com...

there was no further question to be had. The death penalty has to go. It has to go. It. Has. To. Go.

Until it does, there is no way that this can be my country.