Opinion Talk

By Claude

March 2, 2007 11:08 PM | Link to this

It’s unfortunate that the public can’t learn why exactly the Nichols’ defense is costing so much. Why are there four attorneys working full time for months on end, when there’s no real dispute between the prosecution and defense about what the defendant did? Yes, indigent defendants need capable counsel, and especially so in death penalty cases. However, bankrupting public funds should not be allowed as a defense strategy.

By Dan

March 3, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

the only issue to discuss here is how to stop attorneys from extorting the public cofers.

By anita

March 3, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

I agree with the above comments. Had it been me, middle class income—I would be lucky to afford 1 attorney. WHY does the slug need 4? I dont care the cost of death penalty——-its punishment! He needs to die. But the “indigent” attorneys are blood suckers and will bleed the taxpayer dry ..always will.

By Lee

March 3, 2007 11:39 PM | Link to this

Let’s see, $1.2 million in attorneys fees. I’ve read where the hourly rate is between $95-125 per hour. Using the highest rate, that comes out to 9600 hours. Unbelievable. Especially when the defense attorney’s tried to plead guilty for life in prison. Hey, it’s not like the parole board would ever let him out for killing a judge. But no, the hard-headed, publicity hound DA wants to take it to trial.

Let’s also not forget that we taxpayers are not only paying for the defense, but for the prosecution as well.

You know, maybe what the state needs to do is to sic the fraud investigators on these lawyers.

By J Moore

March 4, 2007 5:13 AM | Link to this

Yes, this is too much money; however, we all know the legal system is broken. Where is that rope they used on Saadam?

By Mike

March 4, 2007 7:54 AM | Link to this

The reason that it capital murder trials cost so much is that liberals like Mike King insisted on making them so costly that they could make the argument that they are too costly.

The truth is that Brian Nichols is a piece of garbage whose guilt is undeniable. What we should do is lower the barriers to find such pieces of garbage guilty so we can kill them as quickly as possible. Of course liberals care more about garbage like Nichols than their victims.

By dougmo

March 4, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this

The reason the Brian Nichols trial is so expensive is Paul Howard. Yes, I am for the death penalty, but the defense is willing to plead guilty for life without parole. Mr. Howard still wants a trial to get death. The taxpayers are being sucked dry because of that. Just let him plead guilty and get this over with. The sooner the better

By Kevin

March 4, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

It is obvious that there is a segment of society that does not agree with or want the death penalty. As a result, it now takes millions of dollars and countless years to actually carry out a death sentence. It appears that the average is close to 20 years from the time of conviction until the sentence is actually carried out. That is not justice for anyone.

If the courts are so opposed to the death penalty then save the taxpayers the money and give the offender life without the possibility of parole. In the case of Nichols, send him to one of the Supermax facilities and leave him there. It will certainly be substantially cheaper for society than trying to secure a sentence of death and then to carry out that sentence. Put him away, “lose the key” and lets try to move on from this tragedy.

By Mike

March 4, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

Kevin -

What about the “segment of society that DOES agree with or want the death penalty”? We are in the majority.

By LB

March 4, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

I’m for the death penalty. However, death penalty or not I think that the public is owed an itemized statement from the lawyers of Brian Nichols. Exactly how much has been spent penny for penny and on what?

Hospitals give statements that show every single pill that explains that they charge several dollars for an asprin. Why not give the public such a statement? Are they afraid we will get up in arms because many hours are being wasted but charged? I really don’t think this case should be all that expensive. They need to show us why they are spending all our money on just one person.

By Neo

March 4, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Why does a death penality defense cost more than life without parole? Lawyers…that’s why. At these rates public defenders are lining up in droves. And changing the laws to eliminate the death penality cause it’s too expensive?? The liberals would love that one. Talk about bait and switch. Nichols deserves a fair trail. Watch the old newscasts. He did it, he’s guilty. Goodbye. Should take about 20-25 minutes. Next!

By Lee

March 4, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

There’s an old adage that says:

One lawyer in town can make a pretty good living. Two lawyers, dang if they both don’t get rich.

By Gary

March 4, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

Kevin: “If the courts are so opposed to the death penalty then save the taxpayers the money and give the offender life without the possibility of parole. In the case of Nichols, send him to one of the Supermax facilities and leave him there. It will certainly be substantially cheaper for society than trying to secure a sentence of death and then to carry out that sentence. Put him away, “lose the key” and lets try to move on from this tragedy.”

This is EXACTLY what the defense attorneys are hoping for! They should do the same thing with killers here like they did in the movie Citizen X about the russian serial killer. Take him into a cell, dim the lights and put a gun to the back of his head….end of story! It cost the taxpayers a bullet. Makes you wonder how much that Alcohol swab to prevent infection before they give a criminal a lethal injection costs huh?

By keith

March 4, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

The bleeding hearts hate the death penalty so they have helped erect unnecessary, expensive roadblocks, making the death penalty cases high priced. These same people then wail and complain that we should eliminate the death penalty because it is so expensive. They seem to have never heard of prisoners escaping. The taxpayers of Georgia are paying for study of this killer’s childhood. His childhood should have nothing to do with the case unless he is on trial for killing his childhood tormentors.

By Duke

March 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

This is ridiculous. The man committed these crimes before a courtroom, if not a courthouse, full of witnesses. These particular crimes are undeniably eligible for the death penalty. There can be no question that the rights of the accused in this case could be adequately safeguarded for an infinitesimal fraction of these costs. The point illustrated by this case is that the philosophy of defendant’s rights has lost any grounding in reasonableness, and has entered into the realm of absurdity. There will inevitably be a backlash in the other direction.

By Steve

March 4, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

The DA has an obligation to see that the law is carried out. If he does less he is not doing his job. He should not be concerned with the cost. The government spends more than 2 million on less worthy endeavors all the time and probably everyday. Why is the DA being held to task because the public defender is spending to much money and the system itself is broken? If cost was a factor we would not prosecute anybody. Do you think Enron was a cheap case to prosecute?

By Bob

March 4, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this

I have a wife and son. If someone were to kill them and Georgia were to do away with the death penalty, then you can be assured that they would never ever see the light of a courtroom.

By GaLiberal

March 4, 2007 7:58 PM | Link to this

After reading these sick and barbaric comments, it further enforces that Georgia is trapped in the Dark Ages. The death penalty has been outlawed by all civilized societies except the US. Some people continue to be believe - wrongly - that it prevents crime. Aother people believe that it is what the ‘victims’ deserve effectively making it a state-sanctioned revenge killing. You people are the dregs of civilization and should not be allowed to breed in great quantities.

What about all the innocent people wrongly convicted because the ‘jury of their peers’ was only interested in putting a criminal in jail? I’ve served on a jury and NO ONE was interested in discussing the evidence. They wanted a conviction because 1) the police don’t arrest innocent people, 2) he has police record, or 3) this is costing me too much money. Hell with evidence just lock’em up. With a pervasive mentality like this, the death penalty is just too high a price for society to pay.