You do realize that an execution is many times more expensive than a life sentence, right?

Toasty, then they should change the laws that allow endless appeals.

The article title should have been "Connecticut Joins Rest of Rational World"

Okay, all you moron, low-life, murdering criminals, you now have another state that's STUPID enough to let you come there, kill its citizens, and you'll be assured to live a LONG life, even if they catch and convict you, so lock and load and head to CN!

Its CT dude, the state code for Connecticut is CT.

Yes, this will mean that some people who have done horrible things and could reasonably be said to have forfeited all their rights, including the right to keep living, will be allowed to keep breathing, albeit in a cage forever. BUT, with the countless gross imperfections in our legal system, this is the only way to make sure we never execute an innocent person. I know some of you bloodthirsty types will foam at the mouth over this, but if you can handle a dose of reality, read John Grisham's The Innocent Man, watch the Thin Blue Line. And those "endless appeals" some dolts rail against are the only feeble defense innocent persons have to try to correct injustices. And during that horrible appeals process you hate so much, it's not like the convicted persons are partying in Vegas. They are in prison. That you can't handle that suggests you need counseling. Seriously.

So, yay Connecticut.

Fed up, Toasty is right. It's more expensive to have capital punishment in place than to lock someone up for the rest of their lives. Your comments sound like you don't value innocent until proven guilty..."should be carried out quickly." I've lost someone I loved to violence. I am still not in favor of the death penalty. Nobody is ever brought back by killing someone else. Personally, I would find being sent to jail for the rest of my life far more unbearable than being put to death. The death penalty is not a Christian value, and if that's what we say we are in this country then doesn't that just make us hypocrites?

LOL, for once, I agree with Toasty. It is MUCH more expensive to execute someone than to throw them in jail for the rest of their life.

I am glad that Connecticut repealed the death penalty. It is a barbaric practice and I wish the rest of the states would follow!

Hell, it is actually cheaper just to let them out, right? I guess we should do that.

And what do we do with them if they decide to kill another inmate or a guard? Yes this happens all to frequently.

Is execution really more expensive? Most of the cost-analysis breakdowns I have seen have come from anti-death penalty groups. I have also seen studies that indicate that capital cases are far more costly but are cheaper in the long run. I have read anti death penalty sites that list the cost of housing an inmate at $17,500 per year. This however is the AVERAGE cost of housing inmates. It is not the cost of housing an inmate in Maximum Security.

I will concede that I don't really know for sure so assuming that the anti-death penalty people are right are we talking about a 10% cost savings? 50%? 200%?

Joe, there are numerous studies that show, at least in California, that the death penalty is far more costly to pursue than LWOP (life in prison without the possibility of parole). ACLU of Northern California's Report "The Hidden Death Tax" (2008) In "The Hidden Death Tax" the ACLU-NC reveals for the first time some of the hidden costs of California's death penalty, based on records of actual trial expenses and state budgets.

The report reveals that:

• California taxpayers pay at least $117 million each year post-trial seeking execution of the people currently on death row;
• Executing all of the people currently on death row, or waiting for them to die there of other causes, will cost California an estimated $4 billion more than if they had been sentenced to die in prison of disease, injury, or old age;
• California death penalty trials have cost as much as $10.9 million.

Los Angeles Times Study Finds California Spends $250 Million per Execution (2005)

Key Points:

• The California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. (This figure does not take into account additional court costs for post-conviction hearings in state and federal courts, estimated to exceed several million dollars.)
• With 11 executions spread over 27 years, on a per execution basis, California and federal taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each execution.
• It costs approximately $90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row, than in the general prison population or $57.5 million annually.
• The Attorney General devotes about 15% of his budget, or $11 million annually to death penalty cases.
• The California Supreme Court spends $11.8 million on appointed counsel for death row inmates.
• The Office of the State Public Defender and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center spend a total of $22.3 million on defense for indigent defendants facing death.
• The federal court system spends approximately $12 million on defending death row inmates in federal court.
• No figures were given for the amount spent by the offices of County District Attorneys on the prosecution of capital cases, however these expenses are presumed to be in the tens of millions of dollars each year.

One noteworthy development in a state referendum appearing on the fall ballot that seeks the repeal of California's death penalty laws is the support given by two of the death penalty law's strongest supporters, In 1978, another referendum called the Briggs Initiative established the new death penalty law in California. In 2012, Ron Briggs, who ran the campaign seeking to enact the Briggs Initiative, and Don Heller, a former New York prosecutor who wrote the Briggs Initiative, are foursquare in favor of the repeal of the law they sought to pass 34 years ago: "Thirty-four years later, another initiative is going on the California ballot, this time to repeal the death penalty and replace it with mandatory life without parole. And two of its biggest advocates are Ron Briggs and Mr. Heller, who are trying to reverse what they have come to view as one of the biggest mistakes of their lives." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/us/fighting-to-repeal-california-execution-law-they-championed.html.

After many inmates on death rows throughout the country have been released when DNA evidence proved that their convictions were wrongful, there has been greater concern that the death penalty is applied to innocent persons. There are plenty of statistic studies showing that the death penalty is applied with far greater frequency to Black murderers than White murderers. Support for the death penalty has gone down the last ten years. When joined with the high cost of implementing the death penalty at a time when the California budget is being pared down, which will keep more people punished by a death sentence alive for a longer time in more expensive prison settings (It costs approximately $90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row, than in the general prison population or $57.5 million annually.), these factors are contributing to the belief that there is a fair chance that People of the State of California will repeal its death penalty law.

The death penalty will not survive our Republican-driven austerity measures. Even for those who favor it, the death penalty is no longer a moral luxury we can afford.

Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's degree in law with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)

Manson was denied, he won't come up for consideration until he's 92. But don' let the truth get in the way of your agenda. Moron

One bullet, is not expensive, Nor is a good length of quality rope. THe problem in the U.S is a long one, and it comes back to Lawyers, and a police state. They want you to keep them in prison, more prison, more law enforcement more jobs. Ohhh and more taxes. Anyone who is not for capital punishment, really does not believe in justice. And i mean true capital punishment. Not this 2, 3 appeals process. Found guilty, hang'em. If the process was setup correct. You woul be tried, and if convicted, hung the following morning. And this would hold true for anyone killing someone. Ohhh and 1st degree, 2nd degree, what a joke. Is the person that died ever going to be able to say "Hello" to the people they love again, NO!

One bullet, is not expensive, Nor is a good length of quality rope. THe problem in the U.S is a long one, and it comes back to Lawyers, and a police state.

I agree, since I have alot of Law Enforcement in my family.....I say "FRY EM"...if there is no doubt they are guilty and deserving of the penalty......It's Americas stupid Judicial System, and the "Greed" and "Big Business" in the system that run the costs up.....months and months between hearings, months and months to be sentenced, then the sentencing, then 99 appeals....if they did it......."FRY EM".......remember they are not getting the death penalty for jaywalking or writing a bad check......"Plus the CONS know what they are doing, if they dont know, then "Institutionalize" them in a rubber room.......

Eugene Hulbert jr, he may not, but not necessarily. According to MSNBC, he MAY not get another hearing for 15 years, but that does not mean "cannot".

"Under current law, inmates can be denied the chance to reapply for parole for up to 15 years."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47017512/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

the rest of the rational world??? no they just succumbed to the same insanity thats getting us. you dont rehabilitate a rabid dog, you put it down.

one .22 cal. stinger bullet- cost about 12 cents. the light bulbs in the cell have to cost more to opperate than that. and whats up with health care for those worthy of death? I mean its like saying "we want you to be in good health when we dispatch your sorry ass. Nope cant kill you today because you got a cold" WTF! And all those elaborate last meals, send them all to the other side hungry. I realize that there are some who are innocent on death row and it sucks but thats life and death in our world

Human beings have no right to decide on life and death, bottom line, plain and simple.

The Democrats and Republicans are hypocrites on this matter, so I can't believe anything either party says about anything, especially this.

Even if you believe that humans should have the right to decide on life and death, we mess it up enough to prove we're not worthy of that decision. If there was one death sentence overturned due to new evidence or finding the actual criminal, it's one too many. The problem is compounded when you look at the numerous death penalty cases that have been overturned. We just can't get it right, and we're not talking about deciding what we're going to wear today, we're talking about human life ! That's not an issue we should just take lightly. If it was one of your family members wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, wouldn't you be upset if it was proven otherwise ?

That's the facts of the matter, which is enough for any rational, intelligent human. Now to my opinion, I think the death sentence is letting an actual criminal off easy anyway. A lifetime in prison for a murderer is worse than any easy exit from this world. Granted some prison life is better than life on the streets, but that is why I'm an advocate for prison reform.

I don't know about the actual costs of keeping someone in prison for life versus execution, but if the prison system was reformed we could save a ton of money that could be used for lifetime incarceration. There are too many people serving too much time in prison for non-violent and minor drug crimes.

There is also the issue that many convictions are unjust and being overtrned with superior forensic evidence. Better to be absolutely positive that someone is guilty, rather than the state murdering an innocent person.

There are also questions as to which punishment is actually harsher. With death, it is all over. With life, you have endless punishment. Society is protected either way.

Connecticut, the vote to abandon the death penalty, is the correct and civilised thing to do.

How unfortunate it is to see so many bloodthirsty comments. If killing someone is against the law, then why is the law killing? The law commits premeditated murder everytime it executes someone.

The death penalty does not promote equality, nor is it effective in discouraging crime. It most certainly is not cost effective.

Capital punishment is not just. It is the poor who pays with their life whether or not they are guilty of the crime. The poor does not have the money for proper defense. I am not sure who aptly said: "Capital punishment means them without the capital get the punishment."

The death penalty is backward and does not fit the image of the first world country that America would like to think it is. There are many European countries that can be used as a positive example for the abandonment of capital punishment.

I suggest that convicts be put to hard labour and made to support the families of the victims. The money that is being wasted on the death penalty could be used to create a secure working environment.

Finally, I suggest you watch Werner Herzog's documentary Into the Abyss.

As I read all the comments for those supporting the repeal, I wondered how many of those were pro choice.

Statements like "no one should take a human life, it's a barbaric practice" apply to the argument of keeping alive those who committed some awful crimes. I am more concerned about those who are truly innocent waiting on death row, rather than ending the life of those who have admitted or been caught in the act.

I agree there may be a couple of guys on death row that didn't commit the crime, but now we have DNA and the likelihood of that happening nowadays is almost nil. I am a ardent crime watcher. There are some people so evil that they do not deserve to walk among us. For those that think "life in prison without parole" really means "until death". You are totally ignorant. I know of one case in California life without parole meant 15 years. There are judges and governors like Haley Barbour that have no problem pardoning killers who go right out and kill again.

Our justice system stinks. Hope all our killers move to Connecticut. I recently moved to Texas and that is about the only thing I like about Texas. The death penalty is a deterrant. Killers often disclose the wherabouts of the body or bodies to avoid it and if they have committed crimes in more than one state...they will deal in order to go to prison in the state without a death penalty. Connecticut has lost that leverage. Dummies!!!

It's unfortunate that it's expensive to put an inmate to death and we wind up with the thought that we're no better than the murderers if we have state sponsored killings, but when you sit down and read a thorough account of the horror of the Petit beating/rape/torture/murders (by being burned to death), you'd have a much easier time understanding why the death penalty should exist.

Please don't use the euphemistic phrase "put to sleep" to describe an execution because it debases the taking of a life. Death is not to be confused with sleep. Even children understand that a dead dog is not a sleeping dog.

Softdude, you're apylt named, apparently soft in the head.

I agree that many of these people on death row, or who commit these horrible crimes, deserve to die, but I do not think that it is the responsibility of a moral and progressive society to do so. Besides that there is no such thing as an infallible judicial system, and has been noted previously capital punishment is much more expensive than life in prison because of the necessary appeals.

Can you even possibly put yourself in Dr. Petit's shoes? If the state sponsored death of these two men would give Dr. Petit an ounce of closure, well, I am all for it. The fact that a prisoner thinks he/she will never be free again can never compare to the horror that these 3 women were faced with in their last moments. Death by fire, sexual asault and strangulation? Those last moments compared to a quiet death in a prison cell? I'll take 3 hots and a cot over that any day.

Crying shame, if you sit down and look at all the lives that capital punishment has ruined due to wrong convictions you'd have a much easier time understanding why it shouldn't exist.

Not to mention the fact that every wrong murder conviction that resulted in a death sentence left a real killer on the streets, now completely off the radar and free to kill again since they thought they had the right person. That's more frightening to me than a killer being behind bars for life.

Cryingshame, I agree that some of the horrific crimes like the Petit family bring out the worst in us. I wanted vengeance, I could feel the revenge by my own hands. I glared at the photos of the murderers with unadulterated hate, mixed with the inability to understand such cruelty.

Then slowly, sanity prevailed; I wanted to know what makes me any different from the two disgusting excuses for humans. The answer is; I knew when to stop.

Really stonedog? You think that the only justice is to put someone to death? One of the reasons that the death penalty is being taken off the table is because so many innocent people have been put to death! And as for footing the bill...educate yourself please. It's more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in jail. As I said above...a far worse punishment to me would be to be locked away for life.

Even though I don't think humans have the right to decide life and death, I understand the emotion of it all. If someone close to me was murdered, I'm sure my emotions would want that individual sentenced to death.

But I must say DM7741 is right when you take emotion out of it and look at it rationally and logically.

Unfortunately, inmates who desire to donate their organs are prohibited from doing so.

I didn't know that they were prohibited from doing so. I have to wonder why not. Does anyone know

Being trapped with animals for the rest of you life wouldn't exactly what I will call winning.

Exactly how is being lockup up for the remainder of your natural life "winning"?

I completely agree with Atomant. The thugs think they've won when there isn't a punishment. They all BEG for a "deal" so they can get the death penalty taken off of the table. Their ONLY worry is the death penalty! They fear death but didn't give a rats behind about it for the victim when they took an innocent life! When they are spared the death penalty they know they are gonna get free health, eye and dental care, three squares a day and a bed-most with a/c and heat, free cable, free clothes-who cares they aren't exactly fashionable, and more socializing than even a dog can handle! oh yeah, don't forget free continuing education! That means college! One comment above actually said it was cheaper to keep the vermon alive!?! Not possible! Not only would we law abiding citizens not have to pay for all of that but then the facilities that house the vermon wouldn't need to be built nor the number of law enforcment officers to contain them! Plz! cheaper to keep them alive? NOT!

We should re-institute public hangings and it should be done swiftly after the sentence is handed down!

AtomAnt and gatorftbl, I completely understand your thinking and rational, but it's based off emotion.

Has either of you thought about ALL the times our judicial system has gotten it wrong ? Convicted an innocent person, and sentenced them to death. Some actually being executed, some getting released before the execution.

It's one thing to say that humans don't have the right to decide life and death, which is what I believe, it's another thing to execute an innocent person, which is what happens more often than it should.

I agree. And it always amazes me that religious people are among those clamoring for the death penalty (with a "fast lane" and the "nearest tree" often, too). Same folks who don't want to let a woman decide whether she can use birth control or abort a fetus. No consistency there. Life is life, one would assume, whether it's innocent life or guilty life. Isn't God the only one who is supposed to decide those things? Plus, if one believes strongly in God, one believes in ultimate justice, so anyone who has committed heinous crimes will one day face true judgment.

These are usually the same people who are up in arms at the thought of the State having power to administer a health insurance system--or taxes for that matter. If we don't trust the State not to screw up health care, we should trust them to kill people? Makes absolutely no sense.

For me, the fact that the death penalty does not deter violent crime (nothing is a better example than the fact that the Cheshire home invasion happened in Connecticut WHILE the death penalty was law) and costs more than life in prison is enough to make the whole thing a moot point. It doesn't fix anything. It doesn't bring back the dead. If one is an atheist, then being dead is just being dead--no punishment there because it's nothing at all, no worries, no anxieties, no pain. In fact, if you don't believe in God, then the death penalty just gives the criminal peace, which I don't think is the goal. And if one believes in God, then there's no death penalty necessary because the criminal will one day face the ultimate justice and fry for eternity.

I agree. It's amazing to me how hypocritical the Dems and Republicans are. One party is preo-life and pro-capital punishment, the other is pro-choice and anti-capital punishment.

Hypocrites !

Because one is a medical procedure done on a woman, and the other is the state murdering one of its own citizens.

Travesty of justice all the way, but if they only gave that psychopath 12 yrs and not life in prison, what makes you think they would have executed him instead, if they did have the death penalty where you live?

I am against the capital punishment because I know that our judicial system is far from perfect. Remember OJ? He walked scott free when he admitted to the murder later on. Sometimes the hate of the crime gets to the jurors and the victim's family. They want justice performed, so they want the culprit out of the picture. However, I am against it because there are alot of people who served life without parole for 20 years, only to go free now because DNA evidence came out that much later. The last thing I want to know is an innocent man getting the electric chair.

21 railroader. I am sorry for your loss, but somebody else's death can't bring a loved one back. This is something that nobody can ever forget, but I'm sure your brother would not want you to live your life in anger and bitterness. I hope with time you can heal.

@DM, You're right, the DEATH PENALTY can't bring the victim back, but it sure as he** can keep the perp from killing anyone else. We've become a NATION of wussies. Just over 100 years ago you could be hanged for stealing Cattle or Horses. Now you can commit the most savage crimes and get 3 hots, a cot, TV, Internet, free healthcare......etc......... The BIBLE has it right, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth..........

I'm so sorry for your loss 21railroader, but the death penalty is not the answer.

Your families lives were ruined by the loss of your loved one, but what does the death penalty accomplish ? It may help your emotional state, but that's about all, it won't bring your brother back.

If we use your argument as the basis for the death penalty, what do we tell the family members of people that were wrongly convicted for murder and executed, or lost years of their lives for a wrong conviction ?

What do we tell the family of the victim that find out the person they believed killed their loved one didn't, and the real killer is still loose probably killing again ?

Hello 21 railroader;

You're preaching to those who have no backbone ! Everyone knows attorneys love the death penalty because it guarantees them a healthy income for years. All this talk about executing" innocent" people. No one is sent to jail on their first offense. Less than 1% might be innocent, so society must bear the blame! The death sentence needs to be carried out within the first year, or abolish it nationwide. Otherwise society pays dearly. Lawyers are to blame for the obscene costs connected with the death penalty.

Actually Charles, the number is closer to 10% as of 2003, and probably higher now.

But you're trivializing life by throwing out numbers and percentages. If one person was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, or actually executed, that is one too many.

The BIBLE has it right, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth..........

Roscoe, this is another bad interpretation of The Bible.

"An eye for an eye, etc," has its roots in Judaism, of which The Bible is a spin-off. As far as I know, it means financial compensation for the victim and not physical harm to the perpetrator.

We could venture into an analysis of the expression (in its original state), but that's for another time.

thank you for those who expressed their condolences, knowing that a admitted murder got off easy is the difficult to swallow. i can respect a person's opinion for or against, but no amount of debating will change my mind. why? because i live with the fact that the murder is free and walking around now, and my brother is still 6 feet under. yes i agree that all means should be taken before a person is given the death penalty,but after guilt is proved. don't deny the family of the victim justice.

Wrong article, sikntrd.

Wrong article, and spectacularly stupid, to boot.

Get your cranium checked sikntrd, the blacks in the Democratic party choose to be there, no one is forcing them to be in the Democratic party as your are implying with the word "slave."

Letusreason

The criminals have no problem inflicting the death penalty on their victims

And that's what we should emulate? As a society we should adopt the same behavior as the person we are labeling a criminal in order to find justice? That's some real logic right there.

Heck all I have to do is commit a crime and plant DNA of someone else on the crime scene, they perform the death penalty without proper evidence, and I walk Scott free. Case closed, and what would societyteach a criminal mastermind like such as myslef? Nothing.

You can't possibly be that stupid. Or maybe you can.

The Big Bad Wolf!

Good to know that now if I ever go broke, I can just go on a killing spree and get free room and board for the rest of my life

Free room and board is your ultimate worry? "It's all good as long as I've got room and board."

Ever heard of jail rape prison bait? I dare you to commit murder and confess in public, lets see how long you last in prison.

Oh i'd last. Thats not an issue.

Very true Cirnobyl.

As Gandhi once stated "An eye for an eye only ends up making the entire world blind."

It takes zero stones to whack what you hate in revenge. What takes stones is restraint in the face of massive emotional burden.

culheath, excellent comment.

Irrational response. If the death penalty can't be justified (and it can't), then it can't be justified for anyone. Are you saying that if another Komisarjevsky shows up, we should reinstate the death penalty?

Death penalty should be justified for the Komisarjevskys of the world. If there is direct proof of horrendous crimes such as their's, they do not deserve sympathy.

The problem - if you want to call it a problem - with that reasoning is that it would apply similarly to all laws large and small, all punishments large and small. They are only established, enacted and enforced by that 'tribal consent,' otherwise all injuries would be redressed only by those injured, if at all. As society works, when you pay a speeding ticket, the rest of us, through the consent of the tribe, are robbing you of money - taking it under the threat of the force of arms - because you broke a rule: someone (a cop) caught you going too fast.

I'm not arguing for or against the death penalty, I think it's fine for Connecticut to abolish it, but I think it's okay for some places to maintain it. It's a question I don't believe has a definitive answer or solution.

Doug-950479

The problem - if you want to call it a problem - with that reasoning is that it would apply similarly to all laws large and small, all punishments large and small.

Why do you assert that the premise would necessarily apply universally across all edicts?

I wasn't talking about the right of a society to make collective decisions and impose sanctions. I was simply asserting that society cannot not on one hand condemn an act and then turn around and commit that same act and expect to have it be considered not worthy of condemnation itself.

I see that as majorly hypocritical.

I guess we disagree. I don't see that society always condemns the act of killing; it actually rewards it with the name of heroism under military conditions. It is mainly when someone commits the act on his own authority that it is called murder, and universally considered criminal and punishable.

....society cannot not on one hand condemn an act and then turn around and commit that same act and expect to have it be considered not worthy of condemnation itself.

This makes perfect sense to me Culheath.

There is one other justification - a little subtler, perhaps, but pretty obvious with a little honesty.

Compensation: The law-abiding citizens, who are all tempted to commit murder at some point or other in life, but have abstained from it, are compensated for the selfish act of the murderer by sharing in the group murder (the execution). This is not the same as revenge, as it applies to all members of society, not just people acquainted with the murdered victim(s).

And how do we account for the imposed distribution of that "compensation" even to the people who abhor the murder by the collective and want no part of what they perceive as just another murder?

The state executing someone is underscoring the message that violence and murder are plausible solutions to problems.

And how do we account for the imposed distribution of that "compensation" even to the people who abhor the murder by the collective and want no part of what they perceive as just another murder?

lol, I guess that's why we have voting, and why Connecticut has abolished it. So the cup is half full, as usual.

Murderers have escaped and killed again. So have mentally insane monsters. Natural disasters can occurr that would release said individuals back into society. No prison is fool proof. That said excutions should be reserved for the most henious crimes of murder and torture. If you lost your family or someone that was friend to these kind people then saw them get life in prison. NOt without parole mind you just life in prison you would be just like the rest. The facts is a person can kill someone shoot them and get life in prison and then be out in 20 to 30 years. I know recent case in which this happened. Justice now days is based on how much money you have and whether the case make the news as well. Facts.

Culheath, if you don't think that violence isn't a plausible solution to problems then I am assuming you have no understanding or appreciation of history.

Sometimes violence is a very plausible solution to a problem.

Doug-950479

And how do we account for the imposed distribution of that "compensation" even to the people who abhor the murder by the collective and want no part of what they perceive as just another murder?

lol, I guess that's why we have voting, and why Connecticut has abolished it. So the cup is half full, as usual.

It's a tough nut to be sure. :)

Joe-1015959

Culheath, if you don't think that violence isn't a plausible solution to problems then I am assuming you have no understanding or appreciation of history.

Sometimes violence is a very plausible solution to a problem.

Can you give an historical example where violence was a good solution to a historical problem that couldn't be solved in another manner? Or was the violence merely a convenient means to end a problem at the time? Try not to use war for your example because that would fall under self defense.

Wes-720

Murderers have escaped and killed again. So have mentally insane monsters. Natural disasters can occurr that would release said individuals back into society. No prison is fool proof.

Pretty extreme example. I've never heard of that happening in the US.

That said executions should be reserved for the most heinous crimes of murder and torture. If you lost your family or someone that was friend to these kind people then saw them get life in prison. Not without parole mind you just life in prison you would be just like the rest.

I might. But probably not, I'm not all that a revenge type person in these late years.

The facts is a person can kill someone shoot them and get life in prison and then be out in 20 to 30 years. I know recent case in which this happened. Justice now days is based on how much money you have and whether the case make the news as well. Facts.

You know that a really high percentage of murderers never commit another murder after their sentence, right? So what you are talking about is balancing the application of killing murderers to prevent them from killing again, against the possibility of the state murdering an innocent person who was wrongly convicted. Are you saying that the taking the life of an innocent person by the state is worth your future security?

Culheath, you say not to mention war but you were talking about state sponsored violence. War is pretty much the number one reason for state sponsored violence. This goes back to your statement where you said that executions lend weight to the argument that violence is an acceptable solution to problems.

History is filled with people that are oppressed by a government who are seeking to exploit or abuse a certain class of people.

Once you recognize that their are people who would take from you without regards to how it affects you or how they do it you will understand the need for violence.

Violence isn't the only answer. Yes, it is the easiest, fastest, and least intellectual way to deal with a problem, but it's not the only answer.

Alot,

Already done, see post 1.10, and you're completely wrong.

If we're basing execution on morality, we need to put the murderers on the back burner and start in the nations capital !

Once again, Gator, you're talking out of your ass. You're little more than an urban terrorist with attitude.

Did you know that the rate of recidivism, which, simplified for half-wits like you, means "repeat offenses," is the lowest for murderers? By a wide margin, murderers released on parole rarely return to "the streets to do their evil deeds again." Here's more fictions you've adopted:

Contrary to your opinion that those serving a term of life-without-parole doesn't mean what is says, and when prison overcrowding occurs, they are freed, LWOP means just what is says; by law, LWOP inmates are not even entitled to a parole hearing, without which parole cannot be granted. Except for murderers and others serving life terms under Third Strike Law, prison inmates are given release dates when they enter prison, but if they commit acts of violence or disobedience in prison, their release dates are moved backwards. Nobody just walks out of prison except as part of your rhetorical excesses.

Why would a state's "stinking slowness" have anything to do with whether a felon doesn't care whether he goes to jail? This assertion is a complete non-sequitor. Are you aware that there's no statistical evidence showing the death penalty is a deterrent in the first place, which is also indicated by the fact that the highest murder rates occur in states with a death penalty? If felons are caught and prosecuted for felonious acts, they are punished according to law; most convicted felons serve time in prison, which shows that it's not true that "nothing happened to them."

I am a criminal defense attorney, and my clients are sometimes facing hundreds of years in prison. But you say criminals aren't held accountable; although you may have convinced yourself otherwise, I and probably most of the people on this blog think hundreds of years in prison isn't a "slap on the wrist." "You can go out and commit a crime three times before we'll do anything!" is an utterly stupid statement. In California, where I practice law, and the first state to enact a "Three Strikes Law," the first strike is often serious enough to warrant a prison sentence, the second strike renders the offender ineligible for probation and calls for doubling the state prison term prescribed for the offense committed, and the third strike means 25 years to life, which requires a minimum of 20 years to be served.

Like many conservatives, you're a prime example of the happy marriage of ignorance with arrogance. At bottom, when your statements and opinions are fully analyzed, you're an angry person who's full of sh't.

Michael L. Marowitz,

Great post.

Given how overpopulated the world is (7 billion and counting) and overpopulated the US is (300+ million and counting... well past the estimated 200 million environmental carrying capacity), I don't see the logic in expensively warehousing criminals.

The death penalty system as applied to one-off murderers doesn't make much sense. It'd make much more sense to have a point-based system for criminals, where a certain number of "points" earns you a mandatory death sentence. Obviously, even if one could implement that system, the number of points assigned would be 0pen to debate, (like how many convictions for identity theft are equivalent to rape?) but the point should be that some people make a choice to be long-term or career criminals and society would be better off without these predators.

A person with multiple felonies is not "innocent" in the same sense that a person who may be innocent of having committed a single murder is. Have a system where 500 points gets you a death sentence and you have to get 150 points of wrongful convictions struck to end the death sentence.

The only thing more unjust than criminals preying on people who want to be left the hell alone, is a system that forces the people who want to be left alone to pay for the warehousing of their predators.

You sure have a lot of personal anecdotal evidence for one person.

But what strikes me more is your sense that 30 years in prison rates the word "only". It leaves me thinking that you have no concept of what 30 years in prison means. Do you not accept that a person can change over the course of 30 years? I know I have changed since I was 30.

You also sound very paranoid.

Does not matter if they changed or not. The worthless perpetrator is not worth the time and money in prison. It costs anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000 a year to house and inmate. The problem is that there needs to be an expedited appeal process that does not take 10 years or more, or cost millions of dollars. Part of the reasoning used to imprison these people is to rehabilitate. I guess if you are spending your life in prison, rehabilitation means nothing, since you will never be let out on to the streets again, to commit other crimes. Let's talk rehabilitation to the 2 year old of the mother that was strangled by her handy man and his wife. The mother will never see the child and the child will never get to know the mother. The only justice in this, is that the couple who committed the crime, if found guilty, is put to death in the same manner they killed the victim. Murderers, drug dealers whose drug dealing kills people, child molesters, and rapists all deserve one outcome. That is the electric chair.

Brick, If you're really interested in learning, see my post 1.10, which contains information that proves the death penalty is much more expensive in California. The majority of those set free from death rows are freed because DNA evidence proves that the convicted person couldn't possibly have committed the crime. DNA science has evolved over the last 20 years to become the most accurate form of identification, and the Innocence Project, run by former OJ Simpson lawyer Barry Scheck out of Brandeis University in New York, has freed almost 400 people from death rows.

Recently, erroneous eyewitness identification has been criticized as the most likely source of wrongful convictions, but it's far more difficult persuading a judge that a conviction should be overturned because of misidentification without DNA evidence to back up after-the-fact statements about the various kinds of pressures applied by the police to identify suspects.

In this day and age, the same technology being used can be used to convict people without a doubt. Many of the crimes being overturned are from decades ago, not in the last several years. With that technology, when a person is convicted, put them to death.

@ Michael, Your evidence comes from an ACLU report????? You might as well have gotten it from Wiki. They both are biased and subject to change depending on who it benefits...............

Its funny how eyewitness testimony is more unreliable than lie detector tests, yet continues to be relied upon, in contrast. Amazing how slow to adapt primate political and legal systems are.

I can't find any numbers for people that were executed but proven innocent. Most courts won't even entertain the subject after an inmate is executed, so it's hard to say.

I do know that there are roughly 150 people that were released from death row after being proven innocent. That's 150 TOO MANY to prove humans and the judicial system can't get it right.

I'm usually not into name calling, but if anyone tries to diminish that number, you're as horrendous and despicable a person as the worst mass murdering sociopaths throughout history.