Login or register  
TV
Major Crimes => Forum Index => 01x01 | Reloaded (Aug 13, 2012)
zwixxx

Level 7 (6%)
Posts: 960
Points: 1.5
Since: 18/Jul/08
Message Posted On Wednesday, August 15th 2012 at 11:24 pm
Episode discussion for: 01x01 | Reloaded (Aug 13, 2012)

Is it really cheaper to keep someone in prison for 30+years than it is to try them thru the courts, and then execute them ?
ankjevik

Level 4 (60%)
Posts: 156
Points: 0.4
Since: 12/Jul/10
Message Posted On Friday, August 17th 2012 at 2:46 pm
On Wednesday, August 15th 2012 11:24 pm, zwixxx wrote:
Episode discussion for: 01x01 | Reloaded (Aug 13, 2012)

Is it really cheaper to keep someone in prison for 30+years than it is to try them thru the courts, and then execute them ?


Was this mentioned in this episode? and if so, is this the question you are taking from this episode... i must say as a regular reader of youre usaly good posts, this was not youre best...

back to the premier of major crimes (the closer spinoff) I think this will take some getting used to captein reider being in charge both for the team at major crimes and uss the wiers of this show. but ill give it a shot, since i was a fan of the closer...
zwixxx

Level 7 (6%)
Posts: 960
Points: 1.5
Since: 18/Jul/08
Message Posted On Friday, August 17th 2012 at 2:58 pm
On Friday, August 17th 2012 2:46 pm, ankjevik wrote:
On Wednesday, August 15th 2012 11:24 pm, zwixxx wrote:
Episode discussion for: 01x01 | Reloaded (Aug 13, 2012)

Is it really cheaper to keep someone in prison for 30+years than it is to try them thru the courts, and then execute them ?


Was this mentioned in this episode? and if so, is this the question you are taking from this episode...


I understood (from watching the ep) that the aim of the Major Crime unit, its purpose or mandate (maybe that's a better word) was now to save the city money by getting baddies to agree to a settlement (in this ep it was 30yrs) rather than take things thru the courts and receive a harsher sentence.(in this case death).

I was certain that's what I heard one of the boss characters say to the new lady-in-charge. This implied the city saved money accepting the 30yrs prison term because a trial and death sentence would cost more.

tinalessia

Level 2 (68%)
Posts: 187
Since: 12/Oct/07
Message Posted On Sunday, August 19th 2012 at 11:14 pm
I definitely understand why this question was asked... That was the whole point of the show...settle settle settle..I was wondering the same thing.
Skrypek

Level 3 (42%)
Posts: 21
Points: 102.6
Mood: lazy
Since: 09/Jul/06
Message Posted On Tuesday, August 21st 2012 at 1:43 am
The point you missed was: when the suspect settles he looses the right to appeal. That mitigates the risk of the city having to pay milions of damages in case of a successfull appeal. And chief Johnon's confession-driven investigations have already proven to be not very solid in a case of a lawsuit.
lordkinbote

Level 2 (48%)
Posts: 37
Points: 0.1
Since: 25/Feb/08
Message Posted On Tuesday, August 21st 2012 at 5:05 am
Also, from what I've heard from those trying to get rid of the death penalty, it actually IS cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than to execute. I don't know all the details of why, but it is apparently VERY expensive to execute someone. The appeals process might be that reason.
GeekinTexas
(Crazed Contributor)

Level 6 (15%)
Posts: 60
Points: 1235
Mood: contemplative
Since: 04/Mar/11
Message Posted On Friday, August 24th 2012 at 2:30 pm
On Wednesday, August 15th 2012 11:24 pm, zwixxx wrote:
Episode discussion for: 01x01 | Reloaded (Aug 13, 2012)

Is it really cheaper to keep someone in prison for 30+years than it is to try them thru the courts, and then execute them ?


From what I understand, yes, the costs to keep somebody fed and housed in prison for the rest of their life is less than the cost to prosecute a death penalty case.

I think it has a lot to do with court costs, legal fees, required appeals, etc. It typically takes about 10 years to do this.

I'm from Texas, I know. :-)
zwixxx

Level 7 (6%)
Posts: 960
Points: 1.5
Since: 18/Jul/08
Message Posted On Friday, August 24th 2012 at 10:53 pm
^ I learn something new every day

xena95

Level 1
Posts: 2
Since: 28/Aug/12
Message Posted On Tuesday, August 28th 2012 at 9:49 pm
I have a different question. After just watching the first episode I noticed that Buzz has a shield on his belt. He was a civilian in The Closer. So did they start allowing civilian LAPD employees to carry shields? Or did he become a cop?
GeekinTexas
(Crazed Contributor)

Level 6 (15%)
Posts: 60
Points: 1235
Mood: contemplative
Since: 04/Mar/11
Message Posted On Friday, August 31st 2012 at 5:04 am
I thought Buzz was still a civilian contractor. Good catch - I didn't notice the badge, I'll pay attention for that. I'm pretty sure nothing's been mentioned about it.
xena95

Level 1
Posts: 2
Since: 28/Aug/12
Message Posted On Wednesday, September 5th 2012 at 12:00 am
Just got through watching the 4th episode and when Capt. Raydor asks Buzz to take Rusty to school it's Provenza who mentions it's against the rules to ask civilian contractors for favors so that basically proves that.

But I looked over the 1st episode again and around 15 minutes in Buzz enters Capt. Raydor's office and while he's in there you can definitely see a shield on his belt. It's obviously a blooper but what a silly one to make. That actor has been playing that role for over 7 years, you'd think even if the wardrobe person accidentally made it part of character's outfit that the actor would know better.

Representative Addresses Comments David Chase Reportedly Made About 'Sopranos' Ending

In a recent Vox article, Martha P...

Strictly Come Dancing - The final celebrities taking part this year will be revealed tomorrow

'The One Show' will tomorrow reveal the final..

Celebrity Big Brother - Seven Face Eviction

Seven housemates face eviction after the celebrities had to nominate face to face. Gary..