What the hell - that makes no sense.
Instead of removing the death penalty, try an investigation into who is receiving all the money and why. There is no reason whats so ever that it should cost more than a few bucks.

This smells of corruption....

Edit: What a crock, "It costs too much money, the death penalty should be abolished." More like, fix the problem.
Why is this not being offered as a solution? Why are the only two options, "should we replace the system with Life-without-parole" or "Oppose the costly, ineffective death penalty" ? Why is there no option to investigate the system and fix the problem?

This is just like political motivated operations, Make only choices available which support the one view.

i believe its the cumulative cost of fighting decades of legal battles (both sides can be tax payer funded) but i am not 100% certain.>> ^Sagemind:

What the hell - that makes no sense.
Instead of removing the death penalty, try an investigation into who is receiving all the money and why. There is no reason whats so ever that it should cost more than a few bucks.
This smells of corruption....
Edit: What a crock, "It costs too much money, the death penalty should be abolished." More like, fix the problem.
Why is this not being offered as a solution? Why are the only two options, "should we replace the system with Life-without-parole" or "Oppose the costly, ineffective death penalty" ? Why is there no option to investigate the system and fix the problem?
This is just like political motivated operations, Make only choices available which support the one view.

So tell me why it is so important to punish by killing? I just don't understand. When we know that innocent people are executed, and that wealthy people can buy their way out of it, why this burning need to execute?

I am truly curious. I honestly can't understand this focus on this extreme of a punishment. Can you articulate it for me?

I've had this conversation with a conservative relative. His big thing was fear that a murderer would break out of prison and kill again. That fear loomed larger for him than the fear of executing an innocent person.


>> ^Sagemind:

What the hell - that makes no sense.
Instead of removing the death penalty, try an investigation into who is receiving all the money and why. There is no reason whats so ever that it should cost more than a few bucks.
This smells of corruption....
Edit: What a crock, "It costs too much money, the death penalty should be abolished." More like, fix the problem.
Why is this not being offered as a solution? Why are the only two options, "should we replace the system with Life-without-parole" or "Oppose the costly, ineffective death penalty" ? Why is there no option to investigate the system and fix the problem?
This is just like political motivated operations, Make only choices available which support the one view.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/cheering-on-the-death-machine.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

Today's editorial seems on target to this discussion. Just in general, the idea of innocent folks being executed versus the driving need to punish in such a final and extreme way.

I'm not for or against the death penalty - every case is individual, I know, and I've never made an absolute stand on it.

It's the politics of this situation that drives me crazy. They could have been talking about street sweeping.
Streets sweeping is costing us 20 billion dollars, we should no longer clean the streets - sound absurd? Yes it does. They should be looking into WHY it is costing so much money.

Don't use the absurd cost as a reason to abolish it. Actually give us a sound reason (other than religion) as to what we should be doing in place of capital punishment.

I'm not trying fuel a pro vs. con argument here. I just don't support the logic of $$ vs. death ratio in the argument.

There's very little California statist idiots don't f--k up.

138 million seems a little steep for making an inmate dig his own grave, then shooting him with a couple of 50-cent rounds, all within 2 weeks of sentencing.

First off, it costs more because of three things: the trial, death row housing and funding of prosecution/defense. source

In addition, your analogy is off.
It would be more accurate to say, we are currently getting rid of leaves in the street by burning them with flame throwers, then turning on the fire-hydrants to drain away the ashes.
That is really expensive, so let's instead get rid of the problem with street-sweepers.


>> ^Sagemind:
It's the politics of this situation that drives me crazy. They could have been talking about street sweeping.
Streets sweeping is costing us 20 billion dollars, we should no longer clean the streets - sound absurd? Yes it does. They should be looking into WHY it is costing so much money.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There's very little California statist idiots don't f--k up.
138 million seems a little steep for making an inmate dig his own grave, then shooting him with a couple of 50-cent rounds, all within 2 weeks of sentencing.


I bet that last sentence is the last thing you think before your orgasm splutters all over the concrete floor of your red white and blue bomb-shelter. Your exhausted pants echo through the empty room and then your tears start to roll down your cheeks, dropping to the floor and briefly dissolving the layers of previous ejaculations.