DazBob

Three and a half years later

"Shoot at that building"

Don't you start

That's because it's a calculation you moron! Killing a prisoner does not result in saving all of that cost. It really cannot be made any clearer. Now, wishing them dead regardless is fine. 👍

Now, I'm going to be really kind to you and explain how fixed cost absorption works in its most simplistic form. If you have a facility that costs £1,000,000 and you have 20 prisoners, then the fixed cost element of 'cost per prisoner' is £50,000 per prisoner. If one of those prisoners is then killed do you have a saving of £50,000 ? The answer is no, you don't. What you have is a revised 'cost per prisoner' of £52,632 until the killed prisoner is replaced.

Stop being a drama queen. Nobody is putting an advert out there or asking for him to be killed. I've just said I'd be happy for him to be killed. He's a dangerous man and, IMO, the world would be better off without him.

Hahaha. "Fixed prices". Brilliant

Because you're fucking simple. It's like arguing with a 10 year old. I'll put it as simply as I can. I don't believe we should have the death penalty as a sentence. That sort of thing, IMO, belongs in the dark ages. Should some fellow inmate decide to off them off their own back then I'm perfectly fine with that. Similarly, if some deranged sniper, hopefully one who isn't cross-eyed and using something a bit better than a pea shooter, decides to take Trump's head clean off then I'd be happy with that too. Same goes for Andrew Tate seeing as he's been mentioned elsewhere.

You clearly don't, but never mind. I'm not going to answer why anyone is comparing figures with America. Ask them. I don't want them to stay alive. I wish they were dead. I just don't want our country to have the death penalty. Why are you struggling with this?

Do you know how fixed costs work? ... and no, I can't give a cost because there is no breakdown of the costs split by fixed and variable for the AI response you posted. Also, you, not surprisingly, don't seem to be able to differentiate between what is a calculated cost per prisoner and what a saving would be if you removed a few of the prisoners. It's really not as simple as you are making out.

I wish him, the Southport killer, Lee Rugby's killers, etc all dead. But I don't want them to be killed because of a backwards judicial system where people are sentenced to death by courts. It's really quite simple ... A bit like #theusuals.

Thanks for posting this. It has proven just what an imbecile you are as someone with no understanding of how costings work. As I mentioned earlier the cost of keeping a prisoner is calculated by cost absorption. Prison Type = Fixed Cost, therefore if you kill 1 of those prisoners then there is pretty much no saving to be made as those costs will still exist. The other costs will be Variable so will be a saving ... But won't come anywhere near millions as you initially said. Maybe it's best for you if you stick to talking about stuff you have a clue about.

I've no idea. I'd need to see what the variable costs were per prisoner and also what reductions in the fixed costs would be. I can certainly say we not be going into 7 figures. I'm not the one who said we'd save millions.

So you actually think of the Southport killer was sentenced to death it would save us millions?? Haha. You do know the cost per prisoner is worked out on cost absorption don't you? Whilst there would undoubtedly be a saving, it certainly wouldn't go anywhere near 'millions'

So, do you want the death penalty back or not?